Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Domestic Servants (Conditions)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the conditions of employment of German nationals as domestic servants by the British occupational Forces, so far as they affect the notice required to be given by the employee to leave the position, and the notice required to be given by the employer.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The same conditions apply whether the servants are employed by British or German nationals. Where employees are paid daily, one day's notice is necessary: for monthly paid servants notice must be given 14 days before the end of the month. For serious offences employment can be terminated at once. The periods of notice required are the same for both parties.

Control Commission

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the number of British and German nationals employed in the Control Commission at 1st May, 1946; and the number so employed at 1st December, 1946, or the most convenient date.

Mr. J. Hynd: The numbers were 22,265 British on 1st May, 1946; 26,171 British and 50,545 Germans on 1st December, 1946. There is no record of the number of Germans employed on 1st May. The

figure of British subjects for 1st December includes 2,400 engaged on services not performed by C.C.G. on 1st May.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the hon. Gentleman say why these figures grow continually, in spite of promises that adequate reductions are to be made?

Mr. Hynd: They do not grow continually, of course. The current establishment, as announced in the House, is 26,000. There are certain numbers to be added, making it up to 26,171, due entirely to the fact that we have taken over large services from B.A.O.R., including transport Forces, with an increase in the North German Timber Control, and the families' education schemes.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the hon. Gentleman divide the figure for the British into civilian and Service personnel?

Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I could not, without notice.

Mr. Pickthorn: With regard to the Timber Control, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether we are still trying to teach the Germans forestry?

Mr. Hynd: No, not at all. The timber is being cut largely for export to this country, and, therefore, it is necessary that it should be under our control.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what report he has received from the officials of Scotland Yard sent to Germany to investigate certain irregularities by members of the Control Commission; and when he proposes to publish the recommendations in that report.

Mr. J. Hynd: I have received two reports from the officials in question summarising the progress of their inquiries, which are not yet complete. The reports, which are confidential, cannot be published. If evidence of any criminal offence is disclosed suitable proceedings will be taken and reports will no doubt appear in the Press in the usual way. If there is no evidence on which charges can be founded it is obvious that reports of the investigations cannot be published

Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say how the answer he has just given fits in with his promise a few weeks ago to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a report


on the irregularities at two Control Commission clubs, at Detmold and Vinsebeck? Is that report coming soon?

Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the reply I have given, which refers to investigations which are not yet complete.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. Friend say whether the irregularities referred to in the Question and answer have anything to do with the procedure which caused a Supplementary Estimate for Lao million?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to be able to make a decision regarding the case of Mr. J. A. Thompson, 8, Granville Road, Stroud Green, N.4, who contracted tuberculosis whilst on duty for the Control Commission in Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: I have asked for full reports, including a medical report, on this case, to ascertain whether Mr. Thompson's disease is attributable to his service in Germany. Once these reports are received an early decision should be possible

Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been going on now for a matte: of weeks, and that it is three weeks ago that I wrote to him, and that I have been unable to get any satisfaction in regard to this outrageous treatment of the man?

Mr. Hynd: I think the hon. Member is aware of the position so far as we have ascertained it, and the dates on which this member of the Commission staff contracted this disease. But, obviously, I think the establishment of the fact that a disease like tuberculosis did arise from service in the conditions in Germany is a difficult proposition

Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I myself have seen certificates from his own doctors in which they admit that this man contracted this disease in the execution of his duties? Is it not outrageous that this man should be kept in hospital, destitute, while the Department carries out investigations which ought to have been carried out weeks ago?

Mr. Hynd: These investigations are being carried out.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many members of the Control Commission have been dismissed for misbehaviour; and whether he has any statement to make upon the disciplinary steps which he has taken.

Mr. J. Hynd: The number is 217, most of the cases being in respect of offences against the rules of official conduct. All cases of reported misbehaviour are carefully investigated, and disciplinary action taken where necessary. As indicated in the first part of my answer, we have no hesitation in dismissing proved offenders.

Mr. Lindsay: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there has recently been great improvement in the standard?

Mr. Hynd: Most certainly, Sir, and I think that that is borne out by all observer`.

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the Control Commission staff are under seven, six, five, four, three, two or one year contracts of service, respectively.

Mr. J. Hynd: There are 1991 temporary civilian engagements to 30th September, 1952, 1590 to 30th September, 1950, and 3637 to 30th September, 1948. Staff whose contracts do not extend beyond 30th September, 1948, and established civil servants on loan number 14053.

Prisoners of War (Interrogation)

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will arrange that when prisoners of war are interrogated by P.I.D. with a view to assessing their political grade, a British officer of the camp staff will also be present and share the responsibility for the finding.

Mr. J. Hynd: By arrangement with the War Office, where suitable interpreter officers or N.C.O.s of the British camp staff are available, they already share directly in the process of screening. At appeals against grading, prisoners of war have the right to request the presence of a member of the British staff.

Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present system is to have short,


two-minute interviews by visiting staffs, who, in the main, do not know anything of the character and background of the men, and that there is little confidence in them? Is he further aware that, in the opinion of many commanding officers, these visiting staffs, of whom too many are emigre Germans, are highly prejudiced and quite unsuitable for the job?

Mr. Hynd: I am not aware of the two-minute interviews to which the hon. Member has referred. If he will let me have particulars, we will check up. The interviews are carried out by people fitted for the job. Full information is given to the Germans to the effect that they can be accompanied by a member of the staff.

Mr. Stokes: When people appeal against their categories, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that their appeals are heard in a reasonable time, and that they are not left languishing in prison?

Mr. Hynd: Certainly.

Major Legge-Bourke: Are there any steps taken to ensure that the politics of these examiners are non-totalitarian?

Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I do not think it would be necessary to take any further steps than are already taken to that end.

Agricultural Land (Redistribution)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what plans there are for the redistribution of agricultural land in the British zone of Germany; and whether productivity in the near future is the decisive object of such plans.

Mr. J. Hynd: Plans are under consideration for further steps in agrarian reform in the British zone, including the redistribution of agricultural land. An announcement will be made shortly. A primary consideration will be the maintenance of the maximum food production in the zone.

Mr. Pickthorn: By "maintenance of the maximum food production" does the hon. Gentleman mean that the maximum has already been reached? When he says "primary consideration," does he mean that that is to be the decisive factor? Thirdly, can he tell us on what principle or practice of international law

we are entitled to alter these arrangements except for immediate practical use?

Mr. Hynd: In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, we are part of the Government of Germany at the moment, and we have the necessary authority and the necessary civil status to impose such conditions as these, if we consider them necessary in the interests of security.

Mr. Pickthorn: Security?

Mr. Hynd: In regard to the maintenance of production, that is related to the resources available—fertiliser seed, and so on—and it is our intention to maintain it.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, if land redistribution is carried cut in the interests of security, what is the definition of security?

Mr. Hynd: No, Sir. I did not say land distribution is necessarily carried out for security. Agrarian reform steps are now being examined in regard to Germany which cover some land redistribution, and which take into account the interests of security.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is there any possible democratic basis for that?

Displaced Persons Camp (Watchmen's Service)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what food, clothing and pay are provided for, and what restrictions are placed upon, the Yugoslav military at present in a displaced persons camp in Germany, of which the name has been communicated to him.

Mr. J. Hynd: There are at present no Yugoslav military in this camp. Those who volunteered and have been accepted for the new civil Mixed Watchmen's Service have left for training elsewhere. Those remaining were converted to displaced persons' status on 7th February, 1947, and are now treated in the same way as other displaced persons as regards food and clothing. They receive no pay unless they are in remunerative employment and, as displaced persons, they are now liable to direction to work.

Plant (Dismantling)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under what provision of the Quadrupartite Agreement


this country is barred from discontinuing the dismantling of plants in Germany without further consultation, in view of the fact that the U.S.A. has already declared that they themselves have decided to follow that policy.

Mr. J. Hynd: We are not so debarred by any specific provision of any such Agreement.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that the Americans have stopped dismantling, and have declared that they have stopped dismantling, will the hon. Gentleman say why we have not declared that we are stopping, or have stopped already? What is the objection to telling the Germans what we are doing?

Mr. Hynd: I understand that that was fully replied to in the recent Debate [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to the effect that the Americans have decided to stop dismantling plants other than plants on two lists agreed by the Control Council, and that we are taking the same steps, except in regard to plant defined as war plant.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to make sure that the German population know about this, as they aid not know when I was there a fortnight ago?

Mr. Hynd: We are taking the necessary steps to inform the German population and all others of the steps we are prepared to take in regard to it.

Heligoland (Demolition Work)

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much demolition work has been carried out on Heligoland; and what is the future of the island.

Mr. J. Hynd: No demolition work as such has yet been carried out. It;s intended to demolish the island's extensive fortifications, but otherwise its future has not been decided.

Domestic Coal Allocation, Berlin

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent the domestic coal allocation in Berlin has been honoured; and what further deliveries will be made to domestic consumers and when.

Mr. J. Hynd: No programme of domestic fuel allocations has been formulated in Berlin, but there was a distribution in November of about one cwt. of brown coal briquettes for each household. Other deliveries have been made on a sector basis. In the British and American sectors, arrangements were made for 280,000 tons of brown coal briquettes to be supplied between October, 1946, and March, 1947, for distribution on the basis of six cwts. for each household of three or four persons. One hundred and eighty thousand tons have so far been distributed.

Mr. Byers: Is it possible to say what steps are being taken now to ensure that there is adequate heating in those houses during the exceptionally severe weather?

Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir. We have sought to maintain, and with some success, the heating arrangements by means of gas, electricity, and so on, the availability of wood fuel, and, of course, the bringing in of as much coal as possible to meet requirements for domestic purposes.

Displaced Persons (Rations)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why the rations of displaced persons in the British zone have been reduced to the level of the German population; and whether he will give instructions that in future they are to receive the same rations as the occupation Forces.

Mr. J. Hynd: The rations for displaced persons have not been reduced, but the scales ruling for the German population have been increased to the same level as those for displaced persons. The answer to the second part of the Question is, No, Sir.

Employment (Displaced Persons)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will give an assurance that no displaced person will be required to work against his will under the Germans.

Mr. J. Hynd: All employable displaced persons in the British zone of Germany are now liable for employment, including employment under Germans. Any displaced person who feels aggrieved by compulsory direction to particular work will have a right of appeal.

Mr. Stokes: Is not the answer the hon. Gentleman has now given a complete contradiction of the promises that have already been made? Is it not, in fact, making these people carry out the very work for which Hitler himself transplanted them?

Mr. Hynd: They are now being given an opportunity of earning a living, and they are protected against discriminatiou by any German or German authority. It is considered that this is a good thing.

Mr. Nicholson: How are the wages and conditions of work safeguarded?

Mr. Hynd: By the usual safeguards applied to those conditions in Germany.

Mr. Nicholson: I have never in all my political experience heard such an extraordinary answer.

Mr. Hynd: I would point out that my original answer said that they were liable to direction to employment, if necessary under Germans, and, therefore, would be subject to the same conditions safeguarding their employment as the Germans.

Mr. Byers: Is this an indication that the Labour Government now believe in the principle of the direction of labour?

Mr. Hynd: In the case of emergency, and in the German conditions, we have adopted the principle of direction of labour, as a condition of relief and maintenance; and we see no reason why it should not be extended to displaced persons.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order. I should I like your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman appears to be dealing with a matter of policy which, I find, he gave in a written answer on Wednesday, 10th February, when he was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Flight-Lieut. Crawley) if he had any further statement to make concerning the future of displaced persons of the British zones of Germany and Austria. He then proceeded to make a statement covering more than a column and a half, in which there appears to be a fundamental change in our whole policy in this matter, which obviously is one of first-rate political importance. The point of Order want to raise with you, Sir, is whether that is the proper way to an

nounce to the House a change of policy of this kind? Is there not an obligation on Ministers, if they are doing that, to do it openly and to seek a proper opportunity to do it in the House, instead of secreting it in this hole-and-corner way? The hon. Gentleman has not even referred to it in the answer he has given today.

Mr. Speaker: That statement may have been made in answer to a Parliamentary Question which may not have been reached—[HON. MEMBERS: It was."]—so that the answer would be printed in HANSARD.

Mr. Silverman: This is not one of those cases which appear in the Written Answers only because the questioner was not present to get an oral answer. it is true that an oral Question was put down, but the form of the answer shows quite clearly that the Minister always intended not to give his answer in public, but to give it as a circulated answer in HANSARD. I suggest to you, Sir, that it is quite outside the ordinary traditions of this House for important announcements of changes of policy to be made in that way.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter over which I have any control. It is a matter for the Minister himself.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Why should not these people be put under the Germans? Do not we, as displaced persons on this side, have to work under the Socialist Government?

Flight-Lieutenant Crawley: It was I who put down the Question, and, unfortunately, I was prevented from being here. As far as I was aware there was no intention of secrecy about the answer at all.

Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of Order, I know perfectly well that this was an arranged Question.

Flight-Lieutenant Crawley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Speaker: I gather the hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated that it was not an arranged Question.

Hon. Members: Was it?

Claims Against British Personnel

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in


the courts to be established by us in Germany, it will be possible for Germans to take action or to apply that action should be taken against British personnel alleged to have stolen German private property or to have refused to pay their debts; and whether German women will be able to apply for affiliation orders at those courts in respect of British fathers of their children.

Mr. J. Hynd: No, Sir. The discussions which I mentioned in my answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) on 12th February concerned the possible setting up of a body to consider claims against British personnel acting in the course of their duty. In the Control Commission courts criminal proceedings can be taken against British personnel alleged to have stolen German private property. Should such proceedings result in a conviction the court has the power to order the restitution of the property or the proceeds thereof to the person entitled. Neither the Control Corn-mission courts nor German courts at present hear actions by Germans for recovery of goods or non-payment of debts or applications for affiliation orders against British personnel.

Mr. Sorensen: Why cannot these courts be so constructed as to be able to deal with this very important type of case in Germany? What is the real objection to that?

Mr. Hynd: Germany, of course, is an occupied country, and I think it will be clear to the House that the grant of facilities to the nationals of an occupied country to bring court actions against the occupying authorities would create a most invidious situation. It is a situation which could not be acceptable at the present time. I can, however, give my hon. Friend an assurance that, as far as German women are concerned, we are examining very carefully and sympathetically some means by which they can be protected.

Mr. Sorensen: Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that because we are an occupying Power in Germany normal fundamental human rights can he abrogated?

Mr. Hynd: No, Sir, but there are certain legal difficulties in connection with the bringing of actions by the German

population against the occupying authorities. As I have said, it is not our desire or intention that they should be left unprotected.

Mr. Sorensen: What action is being taken?

Mr. Gallacher: Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that British soldiers actually commit this category of offence? I understood it was only the soldiers of another country who were guilty.

Ration Scale

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how soon he expects the ration scale laid down in the Anglo-U.S. bi-zonal food programme to be fully implemented; and why expectations about the announced distribution have not been realised in the British zone.

Mr. J. Hynd: Full implementation of the present agreed ration scale for the joint zones of 1,550 calories to normal consumers is at present only prevented by transport difficulties, which should be reduced when weather conditions improve.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: While I did not entirely hear what my hon. Friend said, does not he think it wiser to publicise a scale of ration which can be honoured fully in Germany than a scale which only raises false hopes in the breasts of the Germans because it cannot be honoured?

Mr. Hynd: No, Sir, because in fact, apart from one or two isolated instances, the full scale of rations is being honoury In so far as it has not been honourer a particular time or place it has been due to local temporary breakdowns. We prefer to hold ourselves obliged to supply that ration so far as is physically possible, and to make up arrears as soon as possible.

Mr. Stokes: Is not my hon. Friend aware that in the area round Hamburg in the last four months, except for about two or three weeks, there has not been more than about two-thirds of the ration? Everybody in Germany knows that; it is only Norfolk House that does not.

Consumer Goods (Spartan Plan)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish the Report made covering the


Spartan plan of bidding for consumer goods for the ordinary civilian population in the British zone of Germany compared with the actual quantity of consumer goods received.

Mr. J. Hynd: No, Sir. This report is now out of date and does not take account of recent developments. No useful purpose would be served by its publication.

Mr. Stokes: Will not my hon. Friend tell the House of the dismal failure of the whole effort?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND

Mine. Marie Marynowska (Arrest)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to his communication of 30th January with regard to the arrest of Madame Marie Marynowska, employed as interpreter at the British Embassy in Warsaw, who was carried off in the middle of the night by the secret police.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): No reply has yet been received by His Majesty's Ambassador to the Note addressed to the Polish authorities on 30th January, or to subsequent oral representations on his part.

Professor Savory: Is the House to understand that His Majesty's Government cannot protect an employee of the British Embassy in Warsaw?

Mr. Mayhew: We have sent a written note and have made oral representations. We have also expressed the hope that possibly this lady may be released under the Amnesty.

British Journalist's Interpreter (Sentence)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Janush Kazimierezak has been condemned in Warsaw to eight years' imprisonment by the military tribunal for having acted as interpreter to Mr. Derek Selby, correspondent of the "Sunday Times" who was ordered to leave Warsaw in violation of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of the outcome of this case. As Kazimierczak is a Polish citizen, no formal action would be appropriate.

Professor Savory: But in view of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, how is it possible for British correspondents to carry out their duties if their interpreters are being perpetually arrested?

Mr. Mayhew: This man is a Polish citizen; and it is not for us to express an opinion on a decision of the Polish courts.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: How many interpreters attached to the British Embassy or to Press correspondents have now been arrested by the Provisional Government?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot say without, notice. We are, of course, very much concerned at what may well be a restriction on the free work of journalists in Poland, but, as I have explained, it is not a case in which we can rightly interfere.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this man got a fairer trial than a nationalist would get in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Eden: Is the position quite as the hon. Gentleman has described it? If this Question is accurate, and the man has been arrested for working for a British journalist, though he may be a Polish subject, there are, surely, grounds upon which some representations could be made?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I think there is a distinction in this case, and since this man is a Polish citizen we should, in this particular case, be wrong to make representations.

Mr. Solley: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is true that Mr. Selby, together with other British correspondents, was warned by the Polish Government not to inveigle interpreters into making contacts for them with the underground, as the consequences, as far as the interpreters were concerned, would be very serious?

Mr. Mayhew: That is another question. I would not like to answer it without notice.

Professor Savory: Is not the result of this to compel British newspapers to employ Poles as correspondents, and that


since those Poles are completely under the control of the Polish Government, it is impossible for us to get independent evidence from Poland?

Mr. Mayhew: We have to keep a balance in these things. We have made representations in cases of this kind, but this was a decision of a Polish court in which we have no right to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — POTSDAM AGREEMENT (TEXT)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider publishing as a White Paper the Report of the Tripartite Conference of Berlin, Potsdam Agreement, of 2nd August, 1945, in the same way as the text of the Report of the Crimea Conference was published by his Department, Cmd. 6598, 1945, in view of the fact that the text of the Potsdam Agreement is unobtainable and is needed for reference purposes.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (BRITISH TRADERS)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has now been made in his negotiations for British traders to return to Japan; whether he is aware that the ban penalises only the Allies since neutral traders have always remained there; and how many British firms such a lifting of the ban would affect.

Mr. Mayhew: In reply to the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster (Brigadier Maclean) on 27th January. As to neutral firms, those neutral firms which were in business in Japan at the time of the surrender and have retained their offices there do not engage in international trade, since no private firm is at present permitted to engage in international trade in Japan. About 15 British firms have so far informed the Foreign Office of their desire to send representatives to Japan.

Mr. Teeling: Has the Under-Secretary had his attention drawn to the statement which appeared in "The Times", made by Japanese friends of this country, that

they wanted such contacts, and the letter written by Sir Robert Clive to "The Times" which was censored by the United States authorities in Tokio? Does he realise that unless we take quick action in this matter, we are going to let a lot of other nations, especially the United States, get control there, preventing Lancashire and other areas of the Empire holding their own in future trade competition with the Japanese?

Mr. Mayhew: Clearly, we can do nothing until private trade is restored. Discussions are going on in the Inter-Allied Trade Board, and our representative there has been instructed to press ahead for the resumption of private trade.

Mr. John Lewis: Will the Under-Secretary answer the supplementary question I put to him the other day, namely, whether General MacArthur is able to receive representations by His Majesty's Government about these matters?

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Member will have to ask that question many times before he gets an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I should have said that that is another question, and I should like to have notice of it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that the Americans do not steal a march on us so far as business arrangements with the Japanese are concerned?

Mr. Mayhew: We have no evidence at all that that is so.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that Swiss firms are doing trade which might normally come to British firms if they were admitted?

Mr. Mayhew: Trade is still on a Government basis, and private trading has not yet been resumed.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that this matter is of very great importance, and he must not treat it so lightly?

Mr. Mayhew: We are not treating it lightly. The facts are as stated. We have given instructions to our representative on the Inter-Allied Trade Board to press ahead, as far as he can, for the resumption of trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (BRITISH ECONOMIC MISSION)

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of reference, composition and annual cost of the British Economic Mission now in Athens; and from whom it takes instructions

Mr. Mayhew: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a chart showing the present composition of the Economic Mission in Greece. Its object is to provide the Greek Government with technical assistance over a wide field covering financial, economic and industrial matters. The Mission's task is to plan the various stages of Greek reconstruction in conjunction with the appropriate Greek officials. The functions of the Mission are, however, advisory and not executive. The cost of the Economic Mission as at 1st February was approximately £95,000 per annum. The Mission takes its instructions from His

BRITISH ECONOMIC MISSION TO GREECE (As at 1st February, 1947)

Head of Mission

Lt.-General Clark Mr. T.C. Rapp.

Secretariat and Administration
Finance Section
Industry and Commerce Section
Agricultural Advisor (Hon.)
Transportation* Public Works Section
Labour Section
Supply Section
Cost Accounting Section


Brigadier A. Ritchie Colonel A. Evelyn Smith
Sir Theodor Gregory. Mr. Gordon Forbes Mr. T. Blackburn. Mr. C. Mackin tosh
Sir George Morton. Lt.-Col. R. McCallum. Mr. A. Smith (Cl-operatives) Capt. Collard Mr. D. Stanes Mr. S. Topham. Capt. Kanaledis.
Mr. G. L. Bailey
Lt.-Col. D. S. Curtis. Major P. Martin. Squadron-Leader A. Pitt Mr. N. Rowles
Mr. A. Wadelton Capt. F. RUdge Mr. A. Elliadi.
Brigadier Stayner. Major Blisher
Mr. H. Butler. * Lt.-Col. R. Castle.* Mr. J. Dunlop.*


Plus Secretaries, interpreters, drivers, etc., not included in the above chart.


* Joint Heads (only one present in Greece at a time)

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (BRITISH EMBASSY)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he intends to take to house members of the British Embassy staff when the Hotel Chatham and other Paris centres are

Majesty's Government through the Foreign Office.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend says that the work of the Mission is advisory. Has he any evidence to show that the Greek Government are accepting the advice given? Am I to understand it is on the advice of the Government that Greece is squandering her economic resources on a totally inadequate and unplanned programme of recovery?

Mr. Mayhew: The work done by the Mission in that regard would, I think, form the subject of another Question, but I reiterate that the functions of the Mission are definitely advisory.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there any evidence of the advice being accepted by the Greek Government?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, the advice is often effective.

Following is the chart:

handed back to their owners or closed down; if he will increase allowances accordingly; and by how much.

Mr. Mayhew: When the hotels close down the staff will be responsible for their own accommodation, but two officers have been temporarily assigned to assist the staff


to find quarters. Allowances will be granted to cover the extra expenditure incurred by the staff, and will range provisionally between £250 a year and £500 a year according to grade and whether an officer is married or single. These allowances will be reviewed as soon as experience has been gained.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIAM (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS)

Captain Marsden: asked the Secreraty of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now say when the Siamese Government will recommence payment of interest to British bondholders, together with arrears of interest due since 1941; what is the total amount of the loan held in this country; and what sterling balances Siam has in this country from which such payments could be made.

Mr. Mayhew: The Siamese Government have now made arrangements for payments to individual bondholders of all arrears including interest since 1941, to commence on 1st March, out of funds made available for this purpose by releases from the prewar Siamese sterling balances held by the United Kingdom Custodian. Once these payments have been completed the Royal Siamese Government 4½ per cent. Sterling Loan of 1907 will have been fully paid. Of the 4 per cent. Royal Siamese Government Sterling Conversion Loan of 1936, £177,950 is all that will remain due to be redeemed under the terms of the original loan issue.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Foreign Office show a similar sympathetic interest for British holders of Japanese bonds?

Mr. Mayhew: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ORGANISATION

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has a statement to make on the work of the Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee Organisation; and what are the present prospects of a permanent body being established before 1st June.

Mr. Mayhew: The Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee

Organisation met at Geneva on 11th February. It was attended by the representatives of eight of the 11 countries which have hitherto signed the Constitution of the International Refugee Organisation, including the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, France, Canada, the Netherlands and Norway. After requesting the Secretary-General of the United Nations to address an urgent appeal to all the nations which have not yet signed the Constitution to do so as soon as possible, it was also able to arrange with the Secretary-General for an advance from the Working Capital Fund of the United Nations to enable it to carry on its work. It appointed an experienced and highly qualified United States citizen—Mr. Arthur Altmeyer, who is United States Commissioner for Social Security and United States Representative on the Social Commission of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations—to be its Executive Secretary, and drew up a large number of detailed directives and instructions to enable him to carry out his work with the least possible delay. The Commission adjourned on 21st February, and arranged to meet again in Geneva on 15th April.
As regards the second part of the Question, the International Refugee Organisation will, under its Constitution, come into being when its Constitution has been signed and "accepted" by 15 or more countries whose aggregate contributions must amount to not less than 75 per cent. of the funds required. The present position is that the Constitution has been signed by 11 countries, whose aggregate contributions amount to just over 69 per cent. of the funds required. At least four more signatures, from countries whose aggregate contributions must amount to not less than 6 per cent. of the total funds, are therefore, still needed, and, in the case of countries such as the United States whose constitutional procedure requires formal "acceptance" of the engagements involved, such acceptance will also be necessary. On the other hand, 30 countries voted for the Constitution when it was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15th December last, and it therefore seems reasonable to hope that, from among the 19 countries which have not yet signed, the necessary number of further signatures will be forthcoming without undue delay.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the Under-Secretary say whether the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees is to continue the grant of £800,000 a year?

Mr. Mayhew: That is rather a different question. There will have to be an agreement between the Inter-Governmental Committee and the I.R.O. if and when it is established.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (BRITISH PROPERTIES)

Mr. Touche: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has a statement to make regarding the confiscation by the Yugoslav Government of British-owned properties in that country, including the Trepca Mines, Limited; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Mayhew: British properties in Yugoslavia, including the Trepca Mines, are subject to the Decree for the Nationalisation of Industrial and Commercial Enterprises issued in Yugoslavia on 5th December last. It is the opinion of His Majesty's Government that the most suitable method of settling questions of compensation would be through the establishment of an Anglo-Yugoslav Mixed Commission to investigate all matters affecting British property in Yugoslavia. Negotiations for setting up such a Commission are at present being conducted with the Yugoslav Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN REFUGEES

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries have now agreed to accept refugees from Europe; what numbers have already embarked; and to which countries.

Mr. Mayhew: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the admission of refugees into the United Kingdom, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 20th February.
The following is the answer:
Agreements have been signed or tentatively arranged between the Governments of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile and Venezuela and the Inter-Governmental Committee on

Refugees under which it is hoped that 200 families will go to Bolivia, 1,000 to Brazil, 2,000 to Chile and 5,000 to Venezuela during 1947. Further movements to these countries are expected if the early movements prove successful. The Government of Paraguay has indicated to the Inter-Governmental Committee that it is willing to admit individuals who have racial or religious affinities with residents of Paraguay. No specific limit has been put to this, but there are practical reasons for limiting the movement to a few thousand immigrants. Further projects for group settlement in Paraguay are under discussion. The Government of Canada has announced that it will admit into that country certain categories of close relatives of Canadian residents. To date, 2,500 relatives have been nominated, and the Inter-Governmental Committee is engaged on registering those that can be found. The first group is expected to sail on 4th April. The Canadian Government have expressed interest to the Committee in receiving a number of technicians and skilled workers, but details are not complete.
The Australian Government has given landing permits to about 6,000 persons, most of whom are refugee relatives of Australian residents. The possibility of further immigration of skilled workers is under consideration. The South African Government has established immigration missions in The Hague and in Rome, the latter of which has expressed interest in the immigration especially of Yugoslav refugees in Italy. Arrangements for testing the skills of selected immigrants are being made in conjunction with the military authorities and the local representative of the Committee. Immigration into the U.S.A. is governed by quotas, which allow the immigration of 39,000 persons from Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe annually. These quotas are not at present being filled as it is not possible to find sufficient applicants born in Germany. The Belgian Government, after negotiations with the American occupation authorities in Germany and the Intergovernmental Committee, have agreed to accept 20,000 coal miners and their families. Negotiations are under way for the transfer of a similar number from the British zone.
The French Government have sent a mission to Germany to investigate the possibility of receiving 100,000 persons from


among displaced persons there. The Inter-Governmental Committee has reached agreement that 6,000 families of persons of specific skills be admitted to each of Morocco and Tunis. Arrangements are being made for the movement to start shortly. It is impossible to compute the total number of non-repatriable refugees and displaced persons who have already been moved to countries of resettlement. Arrangements are made by the individuals themselves, by voluntary agencies and by the Inter-Governmental Committee. During the last five months of 1946, 2,700 persons were moved as individual migrants under arrangements by which the Committee contributed in whole or in part to their cost of transport. So far during 1947, about 600 persons are estimated to have been moved under similar conditions. In addition, 2,300 Mennonites have been moved to Paraguay.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES TREASURY (LETTER TO UNITED KINGDOM)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that an important letter from Mr. John Snyder, Secretary to the U.S. Treasury, dated 31st October, 1946, did not reach the Chancellor of the Exchequer until 27th November; whether His Majesty's Embassy were aware of the existence of this letter before it was delivered; whether he received any information with regard to its contents by telegram; and what was the reason for the delay in transit.

Mr. Mayhew: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As to the remaining parts, the hon. Member is not perhaps aware that the letter was despatched through United States channels. His Majesy's Government could obviously take no cognisance of it before it was delivered.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government were informed—whether they took official cognisance of it was another matter—of the contents of this letter by telegram from Washington?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. At Washington we knew the letter was coming, but we did not know the contents.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUMAN RIGHTS (NATIONAL FRONTIERS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs if he will consider proposing a charter of human rights to be adopted by the United Nations, including the right of the illegitimate child and the unmarried mother to claim the father of the child across frontiers.

Mr. Mayhew: The Human Rights Commission set up by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations has begun to draw up a Bill of Human Rights. His Majesty's Government are still considering what provisions should be contained in this Bill. It is probable, however, that the Bill will present a statement of fundamental rights, which would render it inappropriate to try to make explicit provision for the particular point to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that the principle embodied in this proposal has the support of a large number of people, and if sympathetic attention could be given to it, leading to its ultimate adoption, it would receive considerable support from this country and other countries?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that feeling.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Are we to understand from the reply that the United Nations are not considering this problem of unmarried mothers and illegitimate children?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot say whether that is so without notice, but the main concern there is with the statement of fundamental human rights.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES

Cameroons Development Corporation

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the personnel of the board of the public company which he has appointed to develop the Cameroons under British Mandate.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): My hon. and learned Friend no doubt refers to the Cameroons Development Corporation, which has been set up by the Government of Nigeria under


legislation enacted last December that legislation provides for the appointment by the Governor of a Board of six to eight members, including the chairman. The personnel of the Board is still under consideration, but the Chairman is to be Mr. F. E. V. Smith, the Development Secretary of the Nigerian Government. An announcement of the other appointments will be made in due course by the Government of Nigeria.

Mr. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say when this Board is likely to begin to operate, and what will be its powers?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think the Board will begin to operate as soon as appointments are made. As to its powers, it is, first of all, concerned with the cultivation of banana plantations, but will go on to cultivate, in the Cameroons, other West African products.

Mr. Erroll: Does the establishment of this Corporation specifically rule out the setting-up of private companies and private plantations in the Cameroons?

Mr. Creech Jones: Not necessarily

Trunk Road, East Africa

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance is to be given to the Governments of Northern Rhodesia, Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda in constructing the proposed trunk road between those territories approved at the recent East African Governors' Conference; and whether the necessary sum of £1,750,000 will be made available from the Colonial Development Fund

Mr. Creech Jones: I have been notified that the East African Governors intend to apply for assistance from funds available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the purpose of improving the standard of this road. I have not yet received their detailed application. When it reaches me I shall consider it in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the urgency of the development of this road for the purposes of trade, as well as defence, will the right hon. Gentleman consider pressing on with this work this year?

Mr. Creech Jones: We are possessed with a sense of urgency

Hausa Broadcasts

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, pending construction of a broadcasting station at Lagos, he will arrange for broadcasts to be made in Hausa to the 10,000,000 of Hausa-speaking peoples in British West Africa.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am informed that broadcasts in Hausa are already made over rediffusion systems which serve many of the larger Nigerian cities, and these re-diffusion services are being extended. My information is that in the Gold Coast news in Hausa is broadcast by the rediffusion service at Kumasi, where the bulk of the small Hausa-speaking population is concentrated. Owing to lack of electric power Hausa broadcasts from Accra transmitting station, which can be heard in both Nigeria and the Gold Coast, have ceased, but their resumption is under consideration. The possibility of broadcasts from this country in Hausa has been considered, but is regarded as impracticable at present.

Mr. Keeling: As the 10 million Hausa-speaking people, or at any rate their leaders, do not know anything about the services which the right hon. Gentleman says exist, will he tell them about them?

Mr. Creech Jones: We do our best to broadcast the information.

Mr. Erroll: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rediffusion sets are mostly to be found in the large towns and in the South, where the Hausa people do not live?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the West Indian Colonies now have development officers; and if he will take steps to appoint a development officer to each such Colony who can give his undivided attention to preparing schemes of development.

Mr. Creech Jones: Jamaica has a Secrezary for Development, whose duties have included the preparation of the 10-year development plan for that Colony. British Guiana has an Economic Adviser, who has


been largely engaged on the study Qt the financial side of development planning. In other West Indian Colonies, the task of preparing development plans has been entrusted to local development committees. In all, the services of the Comptroller for Development and Welfare and his advisers are freely available to assist in the work of planning and in the preparation of detailed schemes. I have always in mind the strengthening of the general planning organisation, but I am satisfied that it would not be an economic use of the available experienced staff to appoint an individual full-time development officer in each West Indian Colony.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these officers have sufficient powers to enable West Indian Colonies to recover from the adverse economic effects of the war?

Mr. Creech Jones: They are there to give advice, and, so far as possible, whenever a Colony wants technical advice we are only too ready to offer it

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS (LAND TAX)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that part of the cost of the administraion of British Honduras has been borne by the United Kingdom Treasury for more than 15 years and that the land tax is only one per cent. per acre, he will consider increasing the tax.

Mr. Creech Jones: The land tax in British Honduras is at present 1½ cents per acre. The present system of land taxation has been criticised in the report of the Colony's Development Planning Committee, and the Colonial Government are at present considering means by which it might be improved.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not a fact that this tax was doubled by the Labour Government from 1931, and reduced by the succeeding Conservative Government, with disadvantageous effects to the Colony? Would it not be of advantage to the Colony if it was doubled again?

Mr. Creech Jones: We are giving consideration, at the moment, as to whether further taxation should be obtained from this source.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary 3 t State for the Colonies if he is aware that corporation employment, except in unskilled work, is reserved to the white population of Bermuda; and if he will ensure that central and local government institutions in Bermuda give equal consideration to candidates for employment from all races.

Mr. Creech Jones: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his Question on 19th February, regarding the King Edward Memorial Hospital. This is among the matters raised in the representations which have been made to me, and on which I now hope to receive the Governor's considered report very shortly. I hope to make a general statement as soon as I have been able to consider that report.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

British Subjects (Security)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British people in Palestine are known to have neither come into the compounds nor to have been evacuated; where these people now are; and what steps are being taken to ensure their safety whilst they remain in Palestine.

Mr. Creech Jones: British civilians are still permitted to reside and work in unprotected areas if they are persons in religious orders, missionaries or non-Government doctors or nurses. These number over Zoo, but some Will for convenience shortly move into protected areas. In addition, II British civilians have been permited, for special reasons, to live outside protected areas. Two have been provided with special guards; in the case of the remaining nine, special precautions are considered unnecessary.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a check-up was made of the number of British citizens before the new precaution came into operation, and can he tell us the present whereabouts of all these people? If there has not been a check-up, can he say when there will be?

Mr. Creech Jones: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to maintain these arduous living conditions until after the hearing by the General Assembly of the United Nations?

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir, the matter is under consideration by the Government at the moment.

Ex-Police Force Members

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether 'he has any statement to make about ex-members of the Palestine Police Force receiving a free credit of unemployment insurance contributions; and whether he has yet approached the Palestine Government on this matter.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have approached the Government of Palestine on this matter and am awaiting their views. I regret that I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVERSE WEATHER (PRECAUTIONS)

Mr. Janner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a committee to plan action designed to minimise the dislocation which may be caused by the recurrence of adverse weather conditions next winter and in subsequent winters and, in particular, to deal with problems which arise in this connection in respect of delays to road and rail transport, clearance of snow, burst pipes and other matters.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have been asked to reply. The Committee of Ministers, which is meeting under the Chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is considering not only the immediate situation, but also what plans should be made to meet the problems which would arise from a recurrence of exceptionally cold weather next winter.

Mr. Janner: In view of the experiences we have had owing to the very severe weather, would it not be possible to co-opt other bodies and persons on to the Committee?

Mr. Greenwood: I think we can get all the advice we want, and a great deal of advice which we do not want. This must

be the Government's responsibility. Although we are desirous of accepting the advice of skilled people, I do not think that we can co-opt them on to a Government body.

Mr. Stanley: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Ministerial Committee to issue an interim report on the question of burst pipes, because I want to know how to deal with mine?

Mr. Bossom: When the right hon. Gentleman says that this is the Government's responsibility, can he assure us that the Government have enough lead for the repair of burst pipes?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account the possibility of a recurrence of adverse weather conditions during the forthcoming summer?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Suez Canal (Defence)

Captain Marsden: asked the Minister of Defence whether the defence of the Suez Canal is now the sole responsibility of the British Empire.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Article 8 of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, under which Britain co-operates with Egypt for the defence of the Canal.

Captain Marsden: Are we to understand that the actual written word of Article 36 still stands, and that because of the conversations of last year our Forces have not been in any way diminished, and are still taking chief responsibility?

Mr. Alexander: The written word still stands.

Mr. King: Is it not a fact that according to the provisions of the Imperial Conference, 1923–26, responsibility for Imperial defence, other than local, rests primarily with this country? Further, is it not a fact that that decision has never been changed, and that it is a burden which this country can no longer carry?

Mr. Alexander: I must rest on the answer I have given, and refer my hon. Friend to Article 8 of the Treaty.


engagements, and on the whole I am bound to say that the short service engagement scheme is going very satisfactorily indeed, especially in relation to officers who are either serving now or who have already left the Service and want to come hack.

Brigadier Low: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the latest figures?

Mr. Bellenger: No, I cannot at the moment give the figures out of my head, but this is a matter which could be usefully pursued by putting a Question down on the Order Paper. If that were done I should be prepared to answer it. I think I have dealt as faithfully as I can and, hope, in as hill detail as I can, with the points that have been raised by various hon. Members tonight. Considering that-we are demobilising something like 700,000 men within this year and the next I do not think one can expect this Army Estimates to be rigidly accurate From what I have seen of previous Estimates and Supplementary Estimates in this House—I have not seen as many as the noble Lord, of course, but I have seen quite a few—and although I am not claiming for one moment that we have estimated as closely as might have been possible, taking it by and large I think we have done our best. I hope the explanation I have given to the Committee this evening will now enable them to let me have the Estimates.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Minister not intending to give an answer to the question concerning the employment of Polish troops and the suggestion that they might be embodied in a foreign legion?

Mr. Beltenger: I have answered the question about creating a foreign legion. It is against the policy of His Majesty's Government to do so, but I think I can say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and, in fact, to the whole Committee, that the Polish troops who were brought here came only because they had served the Allied cause and fought so valiantly during the war against, in the main, Fascism and Nazism. I think I can say that we are rehabilitating them, either by getting them back to Poland—and I only wish that those who are willing could go back a little quicker, but the delay is not all on this side—or, in the case of those who do not want to go back, by establishing them in some civilian occupation

where they can lift up their heads, look every man in the face, earn an, honest living and live the rest of their days in peace.

8.15 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely): The right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned the matter of the Poles, and I should like to begin by saying a few words about them. There seems to me to be considerable confusion in the Minister's mind as to the difference between policy and fact, and one now begins to understand much more clearly, "Let us Face the Future." But that is perhaps a little outside this discussion. What I did ask, and what we have not yet had cleared up, is why that original decision was taken to presume that so many Poles were to be able to get back to Poland. We do not know why that decision was ever taken. It was obviously a wrong decision and it appears that there is no possible ground for ever having made the supposition that very many Poles would get back. In view of what has happened today there seems less likelihood than ever.
I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind in connection with this matter that however much money we spend on the Polish land forces, whether or not those forces are legally right, the fact remains that we owe them a debt which I hope the right hon. Gentleman intends to repay. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) today raised the matter of their legality and I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) state during Question time that the fact that they were illegal has now been definitely established. One now knows who it was who established it. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is, of course, entitled to his own opinion, and we had better leave it at that.
I want now to turn from the question of the Poles to the other parts of the Estimate. First, with regard to the point originally raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) concerning railway stores. When he came to reply the Minister said that those stores came under the general heading of "Movement," and referred only to matters connected with the movement of troops. I should like to ask him whether he would confirm that that is really so. The increase is £718,000 and I am wondering how railway stores can actually


be covered under the matter of movement. Is it a question of the vast pool of railway engines and that sort of W.D railway engine of which, I understand, there is a great surplus in the country lying about doing nothing? Whether it is that type of store or a question of maintaining offices and that kind of thing in railway stations is another matter, and if the Financial Secretary speaks again perhaps he would clarify the point.
There is also a matter concerned with Vote 13 upon which I should like to ask a question. So many people have chosen a gratuity in lieu of retired pay that an increase of £1,300,000 is shown in the Estimate. I do not know whether we could be given some enlightenment as to why it is that gratuities have been chosen in so many cases, but it does raise the whole matter of the Reserve and I imagine that it might not be in Order to discuss that too deeply tonight. We should, however, bear in mind the whole time the number of people who are going straight out of the Reserve and everything else, and those who are still liable to recall. We have no indication from this Vote as to how many those would be. There is still one very important question which the right hon. Gentleman did not answer, and had he allowed my hon. and gallant Friend to interrupt him it might have saved the Committee a little time. I think it was a very important point as to whether any of the other Allied Powers had had any part in this business of special vouchers.

Mr. Bellenger: I can answer that point. They have incurred their own losses, which are not part of ours, and they presumably have made their own arrangements.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful for that information. I was wondering whether perhaps all the special vouchers which are circulating and are supposedly printed by our authorities were, in fact, the only ones, or whether there were some others resembling ours which had been printed elsewhere. I think it is just possible that that might have happened. I was hoping that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer that point and that if the printer has been traced some slight representation might be made—if it has not been made already—to the offending Power. I understand that there is a little doubt over that matter, and I hope that

it will soon be cleared up and that whatever is established will be announced to the country.
Earlier the Minister interrupted my right hon. Friend on the matter of demobilisation leave, and I wonder whether he would consider telling the Committee how great a proportion of those concerned did not take this leave and, if they did not, in how many cases this was as the result of their own choice and in how many cases they were not here to take it? In other words, how many came home after their due date for release? I think it was quite a number, and there were certainly some from East Africa, if the right hon. Gentleman remembers.

Mr. Bellenger: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is confusing disembarkation leave and demobilisation leave. Demobilisation leave arises when a man leaves the Services and goes back into civilian life.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that correction, but the fact remains that he said it depended upon whether or not they took demobilisation leave, from which it appears that certain men were refusing to take demobilisation leave. Another point to which I wish to refer is the matter of bounties, which was touched upon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low). My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the last figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I hope that, before the end of the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us the latest news. I understand that, since the power cut, there has been a considerable increase in the number of men coming back. I remember that very early in this Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said that the one thing he did not want the Army to become was a home for the unemployed. I do not want to get out of Order on this matter. The increase in regard to bounties is an original increase in the shape of £1 million, and I take it that the £1 million is sufficiently much in excess of the figures before the power cut was made to enable a pretty good influx as a result of the bounty. I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind all the time that if we simply allow the Army to become a second best to civilian employment, the Army, the country, and the world will

Animal Foodstuffs

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Food the date, quantity, and price of each purchase of oilcakes from the Argentine during the past nine months.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend has explained on previous occasions that he is not prepared to disclose the terms of particular transactions.

Mr. Spence: Can the hon. Lady give the actual tonnage we have acquired and whether that tonnage is allocated by the I.E.F.C.?

Dr. Summerskill: It is allocated by them, and I will let the hon. Gentleman have the aggregate.

Mr. De la Bère: Do we have any control over that body?

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Food what decision was reached at a recent I.E.F.C. meeting regarding the individual purchase by countries of animal foodstuffs as from 1st January, 1947; and whether this decision was supported by the British delegate.

Dr. Summerskill: .I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the recommendation of the Fats, Oils and Feeds Committee of the International Emergency Food Council on 28th October, 1946, that in future there shall be no unified buying or exclusive purchase arrangements for fats and oils. The recommendation was not supported by the British representative. It does not refer to coarse grains. These are purchased by individual countries.

United States Maize

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Food what quantities of maize have been shipped or are in course of shipment from the United States to the United Kingdom in this crop year.

Dr. Summerskill: No maize has been shipped from the United States to the United Kingdom in this crop year, but a total of 51,000 tons of maize for the United Kingdom was included in the United States' January, February and March cereals programme. Some maize is now loading at United States ports.

Eggs

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he will state, approximately,

the number of shell eggs likely to be allocated to non-priority classes between 1st March and the end of June.

Dr. Summerskill: On the assumption that more favourable weather is experienced in Europe from March onwards, we expect to be able from March onwards, we expect to be able to distribute 27 eggs per head to non-priority consumers during the period March to June inclusive.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Have any of the eggs been issued to the audiences watching "Itma"?

Mrs. Mann: I take it that that number is very much less than what we had anticipated and less than we had for the same period last year. Can the hon. Lady give any reason why the number should be less?

Dr. Summerskill: In the same period last year the number was 30. I would remind my hon. Friend that it has been difficult to get animal feedingstuffs this year. We propose to import more eggs, and in that case we may be able to meet the defiency.

Oral Answers to Questions — WINE STORES, WEST END (LICENCES)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Food how many wine stores have commenced operations in the West End of London since the end of hostilities with Germany; and whether licences to these establishments have all been approved by his Department.

Dr. Summerskill: In the area usually referred to as the West End of London, the number of applicants for Excise Licences in the period 10th May, 1945, to 19th February, 1947, was 165. These licences are granted by the Customs and Excise Department and the approval of the Ministry of Food is not necessary.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister satisfied that these undertakings get their supplies legitimately?

Dr. Summerskill: They can only get their supplies through auctions, and that is legitimate.

Mr. James Hudson: Is the Minister satisfied that all these licences need have been granted, and has her Department taken any steps to insist on a lowering of the total supplies to these licensed places?

Dr. Summerskill: My Department takes the view that liquor is a luxury and not a necessity. Therefore, we are not concerned with issuing these licences. In my view, the licensing laws need revision.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the hon. Lady say if that is the reason why there is a provision in the Civic Restaurants Bill for the sale of liquor?

STANDING COMMITTEES (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Speaker, you did me the honour of appointing me the Chairman of Standing Committee E which is considering the Electricity Bill, and we sat once in Room No. 8. I am not going to refer to anything that happened at that Committee because that would be out of Order, and I am not making a report to the House. I want, however, to point out that the accommodation is completely inadequate, and I am sure that that view is shared by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee. I doubt very much whether even some slight moving of the chairs would give that comfort that I am sure hon. Members feel that they should have when they are making their speeches. I was wondering if you, Mr. Speaker, would have any objection to us sitting in the mornings in this Chamber. We have no desire to exclude the public, and I do not see why the public should not listen to the proceedings from the other side of the Bar. I wonder whether you have given the matter your consideration, or will do so?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should like to reinforce the claim made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), who is Chairman of the Committee. Those of us who are working in the Committee have found the conditions most congested. There is not even sitting room for all the Members actually in the Committee Room.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I be allowed to support the hon. Member for Nuneaton:(Mr. Bowles)?

Mr. Speaker: I only heard of this last night, and I instructed the Serjeant at Arms to look into the matter this morning, and I propose to continue to look into it to see if any other arrangement

can be made. Quite frankly, it would be rather a novel innovation to use this Chamber for the purpose of Standing Committees, and it might be rather difficult to clear it before we came here in the afternoon, while the atmosphere might not be all it should be when people have been sitting here all the morning. I would rather find some alternative to this Chamber. If the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) chooses to put down a Question for next week I may be able to answer him, and perhaps in the meantime I will let him know of any arrangements I can make which I hope will be satisfactory.

Mr. Bowles: While I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for considering this matter, I might add that so great was the crowd that even the HANSARD reporter, who was replacing the reporter just finishing his turn, had such difficulty in getting to her place that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) had to move back out of his seat tc let her pass.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible to heat up and use the most commodious hall in the whole building—Westminster Hall?

Mr. Speaker: I think I must refer the answer to that question to the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Eden: Is this not further evidence of the point which I have urged on the acting Leader of the House many times that major Bills ought to he taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I must repeat the answer that I have made before, that there is not the time to take all these large Bills on the Floor of the House. The King's Speech is the Session's work and the Session's work is going to be completed. If, in order to complete it, we have to increase the number of Standing Committees, that must be done to fulfil our pledges.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that new considerations have arisen since the programme was issued, especially in the case of the Electricity Bill, and that a more urgent problem is before the Minister of Fuel and Power than the consideration of some abstract Bill?

Mr. Rankin: If any consideration is to be given to a reallocation of Committee rooms involving the use of this Chamber, would it not be more in keeping with the dignity of the Scottish Grand Committee that they should occupy this Chamber and other Committees should occupy Westminster Hall?

Colonel Ropner: There are now one or two, or perhaps three, Committee rooms off the Committee corridor which are used for other purposes than for Committees, and I suggest that consideration should be given to restoring the Committee rooms to their particular purpose.

Mr. Speaker: I will look into all these matters and I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his suggestion.

Mr. M. Lindsay: Is it not the inalienable right of the people of this country to visit this Chamber, and is not that privilege enjoyed by hundreds and thousands of people in the course of the year during the mornings when the House is not sitting, and would it not be the greatest possible pity if this Chamber was occupied for legislative purposes in the morning?

Mr. Speaker: That was also in my mind when I gave the answer.

SUMMER TIME (GOVERNMENT DECISION)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The Government have decided to introduce legislation to adopt an extension of single summer time in 1947 from i6th March to 2nd November and the introduction of double summer time from 13th April to 10th August. The Bill, which will be presented tomorrow, will also provide that in subsequent years the periods of summer time and double summer time may be specified by Order in Council. In view of the

urgency of the subject the Government hope that the House will be prepared to deal with the Bill expeditiously.
The recent stoppages of work make it necessary that every opportunity should be afforded for increased output during the coming months and for the maximum production from the fuel supply available. The extension of the periods of summer time will in itself -result in some saving in fuel, but the most important consideration is that it will facilitate arrangements for staggering the hours of industry, and for more work to be done in outdoor industries such as building, shipbuilding and repairing, dock work and railway repairing work.
In reaching this decision the Government have given full weight to the considerations affecting agriculture, and they recognise that this decision will be unwelcome to those engaged in this very important industry. They have, however, been forced to the conclusion that in the present critical situation the advantages which I have mentioned must be regarded as paramount.

Mr. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he has been in consultation with the agricultural interests and their representatives as Far as possible, and that the dates which he has selected inflict the minimum amount of hardship, for some hardship must be inflicted by the decision the Government, have taken?

Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been in touch with the agricultural community and with their appropriate representatives. They are, of course, as we all know from experience in the past, opposed to this suggestion, but my right hon. Friend assures me that they recognise the national situation and in the circumstances of the times they do not press their protests.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sitting of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes 279; Noes, 134.

Division No. 92.]
AYES.
[3.42 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Logan, D. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Longden, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lyne, A. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAllister, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Ewart, R.
McEntee, V. La T,


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Fairhurst, F.
Mack. J. D


Attewell, H. C.
Farthing, W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Field, Capt. W. J
McLeavy, F.


Austin, H. Lewis
Follick, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Awbery, S. S.
Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bacon, Miss A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Mathers, G.


Balfour, A
Gallacher, W
Mayhew, C. P.


Barstow, P. G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Medland, H. M.


Battley, J. R.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mellish, R. J.


Benson, G.
Gibbins, J.
Monslow, W.


Berry, H.
Gilzean, A.
Montague, F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Moody, A. S.


Binns, J.
Gooch, E. G.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Blackburn, A. R
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Boardman, H.
Grey, C F.
Moyle, A


Bowen, R.
Grierson, E.
Mulvey, A.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)
Murray, J. D.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Nally, W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gruffydd, Prof. W J.
Naylor, T. E.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gunter, R. J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Brooks, T J (Rothwell)
Guy, W. H.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hale, Leslie
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Bruce, Mai D. W. T.
Hall, W. G.
Oliver, G. H.


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paget, R. T.


Burden, T. W.
Hardman, D. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Harris, H. Wilson
Parker, J


Byers, Frank
Harrison, J
Parkin, B. T


Carmichael, James
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Haworth, J.
Paton, J (Norwich)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Champion, A J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pearl, Capt. T. F.


Chafer, D.
Hicks, G.
Popplewell, E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
House, G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cocks, F. S.
Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.


Coldrick, W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Collick, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Collindridge, F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ranger, J.


Collins, V. J.
Irving, W. J.
Rankin, J.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Janner, B.
Reeves, J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jay, D. P. T.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cook, T. F.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rhodes, H.


Cooper, Wing-Cmdr. G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Richards, R.


Corlett, Dr. J.
John, W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Crawley, A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dagger, G.
Keenan, W.
Boyle, C


Baines, P.
Kendall, W. D.
Sargood, R.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Kenyon, C.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
King, E. M.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kirby, B. V.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton),
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shurmer, P.


Delargy, H. J
Lever, N. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dobbie, W.
Levy, B. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis. J. (Bolton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Skinnard, F. W.


Dye, S
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)




Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Weitzman, D.


Snow, Capt. J. W
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Solley, L. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
West, D. G.


Sorensen, R. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N E.)


Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Thurtle, E
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Sparks, J. A.
Tiffany, S.
Wigg, Col G. E.


Stamford, W.
Timmons, J.
Wilkes, L.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Titterington, M. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Stokes, R. R.
Turner-Samuels, M
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Stross, Dr. B.
Usborne, Henry
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Stubbs, A. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Swingler, S.
Wadsworth, G
Wyatt, W.


Sylvester, G. O
Walker, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Symonds, A. L.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Warbey, W. N.



Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watkins, T. E
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Watson, W. M
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Prescott, Stanley


Barlow, Sir J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O.


Baxter, A. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Beechman, N A
Hollis, M. C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bennett, Sir P.
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Birch, Nigel
Howard, Hon. A.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boothby, R.
Hurd, A.
Bonner, Col. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ross, Sir R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jennings, R.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col C. G
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Snadden, W. M


Chalien, C.
Legge-Bourke, Mai, E. A. H.
Spence, H. R.


Channon, H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Linstead, H. N
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cooper-Key, E. M
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Law, Brig. A. R. W
Sutcliffe, H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Teeling, William


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacAndrew. Cot Sir C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


De la Bere, R.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I[...] of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A D
MacLeod, J.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Drayson, G. B
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Walker-Smith, D.


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Erroll, F. J
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gammans, L. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.



George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glossop, C. W. H.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Mr. Studholme and


Grant, Lady
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Major Conant.


Third Resolution read a Second time.

FUEL EMERGENCY

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. William Whiteley.]

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Eden: I do not suppose that any hon. Member in any part of the House would deny the need for the Debate which I now propose to initiate. Our industrial problems, both

short-term and long-term, are now indeed of the utmost gravity and urgency. When, nearly three weeks ago, speaking in this House on the day when the Minister of Fuel and Power announced the catastrophic cuts in electricity supply, I expressed the opinion that this country was facing the gravest industrial crisis for 20 years, the right hon. Gentleman and others derided the warning. Later, I think I was described as having "vilely traduced"


the right hon. Gentleman. Well, would anyone now challenge the statement which I then made? Unhappily—most unhappily—it was a sober and modest understatement.
In their recently published White Paper the Government have, at long last, sought to set out, in all their grim reality, the problems which today beset us. This is not the occasion to debate those White Papers, nor is it my purpose this afternoon to try to survey the whole economic field, nor even to demand from the Government the statements of policy in that respect which are so painfully lacking in those White Papers. The diagnosis of the Government in those White Papers is admirable; the remedy is wholly absent. On those matters it will be our duty to speak later, and to press the Government further. This afternoon my purpose is a more restricted one. The President of the Board of Trade who, I understand, is to reply, will not dispute, I am sure, that owing to a series of contradictory instructions and exhortations, and the lack of due warning, this country entered upon the present crisis without any preparations having been made to meet it, and industry was therefore subjected to the maximum dislocation. As recently as December last, industrialists were assured that a saving of five per cent. over about half of our industrial field would suffice to tide over our difficulties. Next month, after a disorderly period when allocations of solid fuel to industry were never honoured, the so-called Cripps Plan was introduced. This, in its turn, was swept away by the Minister's statement of 7th February. I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that it is essential that as work is resumed, there shall be no repetition of those events. There I understand we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer's authority on our side.
How is that to be done? First, I say to the Government that the fullest possible information must be given to this House and to the country. Let Ministers be frank and open. It is the best way with the British people. Muddling and indecision will bring disillusion. Misrepresentation and unjustified secrecy will bring resentment. Therefore my main purpose this afternoon is to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply, a number of questions and to try

to elicit from him for the benefit of all consumers of fuel, industrial and domestics some clear picture of what the developments are likely to be on the resumption of industrial activity, as that takes place.
First, I should like to refer to the resumption of electricity supply to industry. Here I can see that the Government are faced with conflicting requirements. On the one hand, it is clearly of the utmost importance that there should be no unnecessary delay in restarting industry in a given area. On the other hand, it would do more harm than good if supplies were restored prematurely with the result that, in a short time, the present difficulties would recur and we should be back again in a period of chaos. In any attempts which the Government make to steer a way between those difficulties, they will, I am sure, have the willing support of the country on one condition, that they make clear, at all times, the grounds on which their decisions are based.
I want to give the Government one example of the sort of problem that I have in mind, which is certain to arise and with which the Government should be prepared to deal. The decision that they have taken already—I am not quarrelling with it—is to restore industrial power supplies to each of the three regions affected, individually, the moment that it becomes possible, and to make the restoration to each area as a whole. I do not say that that is wrong, but certain problems will inevitably result from the decision that the Government appear to have taken. For instance, in the case of the Midlands, many industrial undertakings depend upon raw materials, or semi-manufactured goods, or component parts, which come from other areas, for instance from the North-West area, which starts later. Two examples are yarn for Leicester, and engineering components for Birmingham. Many undertakings therefore may still be unable to resume work when their own power supplies are restored to them, unless their suppliers or their sub-contractors also recover their fuel supply. Alternatively, they may restart and then find in a short time that they have to shut down because they have not the materials or components from some other parts of the country. That is, clearly, a very real difficulty. On the other hand, the areas are large and diversified. What may be true about Birmingham, for instance, may not


be true about Northampton and the boot and shoe industry there.
I think the Government would be right in taking the view that there cannot be a general rule as to whether undertakings in a given area, like the Midlands, can or cannot resume immediately power supplies are made available. If it is impossible to restore supplies on a selective basis—as to which I should like to know the Government's view—it is of the utmost importance that the position should be explained to the nation, and above all to those engaged in industry. Managements will have a very difficult time. They will have to decide whether or not it is right for them to resume full-scale production, or even partial production, when their power supplies are restored. That decision must depend upon the supply of materials and components which are coming from other areas. The result will be that some factories will start before others. There is sure to be discontent among operatives unless the facts of the position are explained to them perfectly clearly This can only be done, I admit, through the established machinery in industry. It is, however, the responsibility of the Government to take the lead, and I ask them to do it. In other words, do not in this period when we begin to work again blame industrial leadership for not doing the impossible.
I have one other question about industrial power. What are the Government's intentions towards the question of staggering the industrial load? I understand, from the Press, that they have expressed themselves in favour of such a plan, which everybody will admit has some temporary advantages. But it is bound to be very difficult to work. It will cause a great deal of inconvenience and, indeed, discomfort to managements and to operatives. Secondly, it is the duty here again of the Government to take a firm lead in this matter. If it is their intention that staggering of the industrial load is, in fact, to be brought about as an emergency measure, then they must give the guidance and the justification.
Here I must remind the House of some facts which seem to have been too widely overlooked. It is not really any sufficient explanation to say now that the electric power crisis in industry has been brought about just by this sudden spell of cold weather. I only wish that were true, because then our problems

would be easier. Unhappily it is not true. If hon. Members will be good enough to look at the "Monthly Digest of Statistics"—the Government's admirable production—for January, they will find the matter set out most clearly. They will find that in November, 1945—these are the only figures with which I have to trouble the House—stocks of coal in the possession of electricity undertakings totalled 3,287,000 tons. That was at the beginning of that winter of 1945. They will also find that the figure of those same undertakings in March last year was 1,176,000 tons. In other words, the expenditure between November, 1945, and March, 1946, was 2,111,000 tons—

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): More than that.

Mr. Eden: That is stocks, The stocks at the beginning of this winter—last November—according to the same figures, were already as low as 2,138,000 tons. In other words, had the consumption of electricity undertakings this winter been only as great as it was last year, during corn paratively mild weather, their stocks would still have been zero by March on comparable figures. If there is anything incorrect about that, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me.
Let me put the figures another way. In November, 1945, the electricity undertakings held about six weeks' stock of coal. Between November, 1945, and March, 1946, those stocks had fallen by four weeks, that is to say, to approximately two weeks' supply. Last November they had managed to stock up again to four weeks' supply, that is to say, they stocked up again to the same amount that they had used in the previous winter. Therefore it is clear that on a continuing use on the same level, stocks must have fallen to zero by the late winter of this year. I am sure that if there is anything wrong with those figures, I shall hear of it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. At the same rate of consumption, supplies must have dropped to zero before the end of the winter. My object in emphasising these figures is not to point any criticism. But if they are correct, we must draw the lesson from them, and it is this—that the companies were justified in the warnings which they gave last summer, and therefore it was unjust of the Minister to refer to those warnings as nonsense and propaganda—

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if the supply during this winter to the electricity companies remained the same as last winter, or if it increased?

Mr. Eden: What I was pointing out was that the stock position was such that a consumption this winter similar to that of last winter, was bound to produce this situation, not now but in a month or two's time. I am perfectly ready to be shown by the right hon. Gentleman how that is wrong. So far as I can discover from the figures of the Government, it is absolutely correct. If it is not correct, it is near enough to show that the right hon. Gentleman should not have derided those warnings—

The Minister, of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): indicated dissent.

Mr. Eden: I do not wish to pursue these matters, but to get on to the future. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to give him another quotation, I will give it. Did he not say that it was a villainous campaign against the Government? The right hon. Gentleman keeps shaking his head, but I do not know what that means. Does he mean to indicate that he did not say that? I am not seeking to exaggerate, but I am saying that these public companies issued warnings to the Government, and I think the Government were utterly wrong to deride those warnings. They were wrong to do so in face of their figures. I shall be very interested to hear any reply from the Government which contradicts that.
I also think it necessary that the country should realise that even without this cold weather, we should have had to face the problem of cuts in electricity supplies, though no doubt later than we are now facing them. I cannot understand, in view of the knowledge the Ministers themselves must have had of the stock position, how it was that in December they made an appeal to industry only calling for voluntary cuts over a section of industry which would have saved 35,000 tons a week. It seems to us that the writing on the wall could not have been plainer. Unhappily the Ministers could not read their own writing. I emphasise all this, because unless we understand the true position, we cannot hope to find the solution.
From that basis, I turn to the question of solid fuel. The difficulties of coal supply to industry in the last week or two have been overshadowed by these physical shortages of electrical power, but I would remind the House that even before the advent of this worse crisis and even before the electricity cuts were instituted, we were facing shortages of coal for industry which, in themselves, looked like causing serious dislocation, if not even a breakdown. I do not think there is any dispute about that. This situation, although it has been temporarily obscured, cannot have been improved by recent developments, in spite of the efforts which have been made. It is quite true that the closing down of industry will have saved coal, and against that there has been some reduction inevitably in output during the worst period of the weather. We must also take into account the dislocation of transport and the diversion of supplies to build up stocks in the emergency at the power stations and gasworks. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is of the utmost importance, therefore, that the industrial coal supply position should be clarified as quickly as possible. If industrialists are to have any sound basis for planning the resumption of full-scale production, they must have some degree of certainty about their supplies of coal. So far, this winter they have had none.
There are two questions which urgently need' answering. The first is: Do the Government intend to produce a coal budget which is realistic, shorn of wishful thinking and sufficiently detailed to show clearly the effects of the allocations it comprises upon the different consumers of coal? Secondly, by what means do the Government intend to bring industrial consumption into line with the supply figures to be indicated in the coal budget? It is painfully clear to everybody that supplies will be much less than required, but it is of the utmost importance that the House and the country should know the exact measure of this short-fall, and how it is to be shared out.
Let me remind the House of the position that had been reached before the introduction of the drastic electricity cuts rather less than three weeks ago. Throughout the winter what has been happening? Firms have been working on allocations which, in fact, represented their optimum requirements, and against


these allocations they have received deliveries which have varied widely in quantity, quality and regularity, not only between industry and industry, but between firm and firm. And the situation grew so bad that it was impossible for industrialists to know from week to week, and even sometimes from day to day. what coal supplies they were to receive. They could not even tell sometimes whether the supplies would be enough to meet their minimum requirements to maintain production. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that that picture is broadly accurate.
In these circumstances, it is unhappily true that the word "allocation" became a farce and so, at long last, we had introduced, after long delay, the so-called "Cripps Plan" based on a realistic appreciation of that situation. But, by this plan, allocations were cut in half and firms were told what they could reasonably expect to get in the way of supplies up to the full extent of those half allocations. Over and above that, there were to be created additional supplies in a common pool in regions from which additional priority supplies would be made available. The iron and steel industry would have additional supplies up to 75 per cent. of their allocation. But what happened? Before that plan could he put into effect, the weather and then the statement of the electricity cuts intervened. I do not want to go over that ground again, but to ask: What is the position now? Will the Government rely on the Cripps Plan, so-called, or is that unrealisable now? I suggest that, as a first measure, the Government should endeavour to introduce revised and, if possible, renamed allocations, which would reflect not the optimum requirements of industrial undertakings, but the quantities that they need as a minimum to maintain reasonably full working throughout the winter. If the Government would act on this basis, it should be possible to produce a realistic budget for the division of the available supplies.
I ask the Government, what are their intentions? For the first two weeks in the Midlands, we know that deliveries are to be 30 per cent. of the original allocation as compared with the 50 per cent. of the Cripps Plan. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that amount in many cases will not permit even warming the

factories to a safe working temperature; it will certainly leave nothing for producing the steam necessary for industrial processes. It is clear, therefore, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that many firms will not be able to contemplate starting again with that sort of allowance-30 per cent. But the right hon. Gentleman may say, "This is a fresh start after a period of chaos, and it is not surprising that the figures of deliveries have to be kept very low in the first fortnight." Very well, I will accept that. But what is to happen at the end of the two weeks? Can we assume that, after that, industry will at least be assured of the 50 per cent, allocation proposed under the Cripps Plan? This, at least, I hope, can be guaranteed. I say "at least" advisedly, for if supplies must be kept as low as this, the result will be continuing unemployment and further hindrance to our export trade. There is no need for me to labour the dangers that situation.
How do the Government propose to mitigate the effects of this deficiency, whether it be 50 per cent or more than 50 per cent., or a little less? Is industry to be allowed, for instance, to work this out in the form of short time of a three or four day week? Or a one week month? This, I am advised, is perhaps the most costly and the most inefficient method conceivable. Is there to be a scheme of priority, or even a scheme of prohibition? If so, what are these schemes to be, and what are the activities to be discouraged? For instance, will the Government continue to supply fuel for the manufacture of electric radiators for the home or, on the other hand, do the Government propose to ration the supply of coal to undertakings making mining equipment, electric generators, power stations, locomotive and railway wagons, and other products which themselves contribute to producing coal? It would indeed be a tragedy if these had to be rationed. Are there td be priorities? If so, on what basis are those priorities to be determined? What is the plan?
I know that in asking the Government to answer these questions, I am setting them a difficult task, but it is immensely important and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the questions are framed with no other purpose than to try


to discover what the Government plan means—

Sir S. Cripps: indicated assent.

Mr. Eden: The structure of industry is so complex, with a network of interlocking activities, that it makes it very difficult to say that the supply of products for any particular industry ought to be classified as essential or unessential. These problems, I admit, cannot be solved simply by labelling the products of one industry essential, and calling others unnecessary.

Mr. Jack Jones: More decontrol?

Mr. Eden: I was not advocating decontrol at this particular moment. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen should find that entertaining. What I am seeking to do and, I hope, constructively is to put questions to the Government in order to inform the country how to get out of a most unpleasant dilemma. I am not concerned with trying to make party political points about the last General Election or even about the next one. Let 'me come back to the questions I still want to ask. I now come to the question of domestic supplies. On all these points, I repeat, what we ask is to be told by the Government first what is the position, and then what their plan is. If they tell us truly the position, and we approve their plan, if the plan is reasonable and acceptable, it will be backed and supported by national effort; but if we are not told the plan, the Government cannot expect to receive real national support.
Can the Government give us a frank and factual statement about the position of domestic consumers? According to such statistics as I have been able to find—they are the Government's—stocks in the merchants' yards and recent deliveries have been at a fairly high level. Domestic supplies, I believe, have been maintained at the planned figure at the expense of industrial supplies, which have had to bear the main brunt of the deficiency. Nevertheless—and here I want the Government to tell us their plans—there is only too much evidence of widespread hardship caused by shortage of domestic solid fuel, particularly in the rural districts. Here is a special problem which requires the Government's special attention. There are many country districts, as hon. Members

know, which are dependent entirely upon solid fuel supplies. Families, even whole communities I have heard, find themselves without supplies of solid fuel, and the pictures we see in the Press of all-night queues outside London gasworks, bear pretty eloquent testimony to the shortages that have been borne by domestic consumers in urban areas. In the rural areas there may not even be a gasworks outside which they can queue.

Mr. Shurmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that this is the only time they have ever queued?

Mr. Eden: I was not suggesting anything of the kind. What I am dealing with is the situation as it is now, and I am referring to pictures in the newspapers which can be seen by the hon. Member.

Mr. Shurmer: I have seen many real queues between the two wars.

Mr. Eden: No doubt many things have gone wrong since the beginning of time. If it had not been for Adam and Eve, we might not have had this problem at all. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) knows my constituency, and he knows there is queuing now in respect of coal. I am asking the Government to pay special attention to the question of coal for rural areas.

Sir S. Cripps: We are not in the Garden of Eden now.

Mr. Eden: Having made my appeal for the Garden, I come back to the industrial position. This question of domestic supplies is important, not only in itself, but in its influence on the consumption of electricity. There can be no doubt that the shortage of solid fuel has contributed largely to the great extension of domestic consumption of gas, and more particularly of electricity. There seems to be no reason to doubt that unless definite steps are taken by the Government, domestic consumption of those kinds of fuel will continue to expand, to the detriment of supplies for industrial and other essential purposes. Can the Government give the House any indication of what proposals they have to attempt to meet these difficulties? Nothing has astonished me more in all this unhappy business, than the surprise expressed by Ministers at the rapidly rising consumption of electricity, when an ever-increasing supply of electrical appli-


ances of all kinds has been made available to the general public, at a time when the supplies of solid fuel were lowest. This month the Minister of Fuel and Power was saying—and I have no doubt that it is true—that he had been thinking for months about how to reduce the burdens on electricity. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the Purchase Tax on a wide range of these appliances. It looks as if the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. I ask the Government what are their proposals in that respect?
There is another question I put to the Government. Are they going to continue to put so many extraneous burdens on the Ministry of Fuel and Power at a time like this? I am not dealing with the Coal Board—that is set up—but I am thinking of the nationalisation of electricity. Hon. Members opposite believe firmly that that should be brought about, and we on this side of the House do not believe it should be brought about. But, who can pretend that progress in that direction in the next few months, can have any influence whatever in meeting the situation, the seriousness of which Ministers emphasise every lime they speak? Surely that Measure might be postponed, and the officers of the Department be given time to attend to the more urgent tasks which are facing us. The Minister need not worry; he is well ahead in the "Nationalisation stakes" already. He has one Bill through, another upstairs, and a third coming along shortly. I think it is very largely as a result of that, that the administration has broken down. I ask the Government as a matter of urgency to take off the shoulders of hard-pressed Departments the unnecessary burden of these theoretical Measures which, whatever their merits, can bring no immediate benefit, and only serve to distract the watchfulness and energies of the Departments from essential national duty.
I have dealt this afternoon with matters of immediate importance, and have asked a number of questions. All these are concerned with the problem of mitigating scarcity. But, of course, there is only one real answer to all our difficulties, and that is to increase production of coal. It would be a tragedy if we dealt with immediate problems, but allowed ourselves to forget that for a moment. I have not forgotten it, and I would like to ask the

Government why is it that in the White Paper they have set themselves so low a target for coal production in 1947? The target is approximately 192 million tons of deep-mined coal. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in 1941, for instance, the total output was over 206 million tons which was produced by 697,000 wage-earners. That is, approximately, the same number as we have today. Since 1941 there has certainly been some improvement in mechanisation, even during war. Why is it that the Government fix a figure about 14 million tons below that which was achieved in 1941? They have the same labour force, and I am happy to say they have in it now a number of men returned from the Forces, who are certainly first-class miners. Why is that figure so low? I think we ought to have some explanation of that.
I am convinced, and I think many hon. Members in all parts of the House are convinced, that the figure of 200. million tons is not going to be enough for the plans the Government themselves laid down in their own White Paper for the expansion of the export trade. Then there is the problem of stocking, which also has to be handled. What stock-pile do the Government aim to achieve for next winter? That we ought to know, and to know soon. I doubt whether the figure achieved in 1941, of 206 million tons, plus opencast coal, say, 8 million or 9 million tons more-215 million tons altogther—would be enough for the programme as outlined in the White Paper. But the Government have set a lower target, and we must know why. If there is some reason, something in connection. with hours or days of work, I think the House ought to be told. I am not here dealing with long range planning in respect of which, no doubt, much could be said; I am dealing with the current year, the urgency of which needs no emphasis in this House.
Finally, on the question of production, are the Government quite confident that they can get this 200 million tons? We on this side of the House think it is not enough for the Government's export plan. But, supposing it were enough, and there is a danger of a shortfall, then we would have to look elsewhere for supply, which is a horrible thing to have to. contemplate. If we do have to look else- where for supply, we had better begin.


to look now rather than in the late autumn of this year. I ask the Government again, whether they are convinced that that 200 million tons is enough for the needs of production they themselves have set forth, and whether they are confident that they can get it. If not, I beg them, now, to take every step in their power to try to find supplies from other sources. We have suffered too much from hand to mouth improvisation. Today we have asked for the truth, and we ask for a plan. This afternoon I have sought to do one thing in opening this Debate. I have not sought to forestall the major discussion on the White Paper but to deal first with those matters which are of urgent practical importance for the life of the country. They must be solved, and I think that answers must be given to all the questions I have asked, if industry, which has suffered so severely through the sudden jolts and dislocations of the past few months, is to have a fair chance to resume that productive activity, on which the whole life of the nation depends.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: I wish to say a few words of a practical nature, following upon the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). While the House has been considering these problems, it has been my duty to assist in closing down industry and in starting it up again. Perhaps a few words on the practical points which I have gathered from my experiences in the Midlands, might be helpful at the present moment.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is not an occasion on which to hold an inquest upon what has happened in the past. That is what we call the "spilled milk" account. No doubt the question of who spilled the milk will be investigated at a later date. What I am interested in today, is the problem which faces us today, the problem which will face us this week and next week—a pretty grim one. In the Midlands, after having been closed down for two weeks, we have started up again. We were given to understand that when we did start up again, the switch-on would be for the whole country. That was an official statement which came to us through the usual channels, but the Government, in their

wisdom, have not waited until the whole country was ready. They have allowed us in the Midlands to start up again, and we rejoice to get the men back to work. After having had their loyal support during the past fortnight, we are glad that they are back at work, and we will do everything we can to keep them going. But this partial start-up will create difficulties which may not have been anticipated at headquarters.
We have been investigating our stock position and we find that we have go odd per cent. of the stocks we require, but we have not got the last little bit. That depends upon areas which have been closed down, and the result is that we shall not have any tempo in production. We have had great success, during the period since the war, in raising that tempo, as workers who have been away have picked up the work again, and as the effect in the turnover has worn off. My organisation lost 8,000 people in six months, and replaced them by 8,000 more. It takes a long time to train workers and it is a costly business. We were getting the tempo up, but how can we expect it to keep up, when we shall have waiting time and materials running short at unexpected moments? On top of that we have been told that we shall get 30 per cent. of our allocation of solid fuel. We recognise that that is a gesture, and we are grateful for it, but it is apparent that industry cannot run on a proper basis on 30 per cent, of its normal allocation of fuel.
We are presuming that we shall go back to the 50 per cent. allocation, but even then we are in a great difficulty. Not only is fuel needed for heating, but for process work. On top of that is the threat during the week-end that we might have to face a shutdown of gas. If that happens, many industries will close down, because their furnaces and processes depend upon a continuous supply of gas. At the moment, the best we can do is to start up for three days a week. That is no good. There is no incentive in three days a week. The worker is only human. He knows that if he works for three days and plays for three days, he would be just as well off on unemployment pay. He must work for four days a week in order to have some incentive. Therefore, industry in the Midlands is trying to get a four day week, extending the hours, while the premises are heated, to enable


as many hours to be worked in four days as possible. That relates to this week. Next week depends on the fuel coming in. If it arrives, industry will continue next week. If it does not, industry will shut down.
We are considering the question of staggering hours, but that cannot be done merely by a resolution. It means a lot of organisation. During the war we did all these things, but we took time and organised them. Transport and canteens have to be arranged. There are women workers with home duties, who cannot work any and every hour. In regard to transport, I am reminded, by friends in the transport industry, that people seem to imagine that buses drive themselves. The fact is that drivers and conductors have to be found and have to work to the garages. A sudden staggering of hours must not be expected. The problem is being dealt with, and will be dealt with, because we realise that it is a method which will help. But it will not come easily.
I have been speaking of general organisations in the Midlands which can switch on the power, and start work. There are other organisations to whom the switch-on of power is of no assistance. While I was abroad, the House discussed the question of the Austin Company. I read the Debate in HANSARD. They cannot take advantage of this switch-on of power. They use part of their power for their own purposes, and instead of wasting the heat which is generated they use it for processes. Consequently, they must have coal to run their plants, in order to do what we all thought was a most economical thing—to use the waste heat for other purposes. They who have taken a great deal of trouble to organise efficiently often feel that the people who have taken the most trouble seem to be the worst off. It is the "rub of the green," I know, but it does not make it easier to bear, and we must put up with the irritation and exasperation felt, at times, by those people who have taken what they thought were long views, which are hurting them more than if they had taken a shorter view.

Mr. Blackburn: I am sure we would like to acknowledge that this matter was rectified yesterday, as the management of Austin's have admitted. The Government do de

serve credit for having recognised the problem.

Sir P. Bennett: I left Birmingham yesterday, and I was speaking of the information which was given to me yesterday morning. I am very pleased to hear the information which the hon. Member has just given us. I am delighted to know that that has been put right.
I have been making inquiries in other directions. The chemical industry is located in all parts of the country. The south is completely shut down; the northwest is working to the extent of something like 40 per cent., and the north-east is in full blast. In chemicals, there is an interchange between one district and another. The result is that instead of getting anything like full output, we find ourselves in great difficulty, because here as in the engineering industry, there are shortages. How bleak is the export prospect in the chemical world. Chemicals have been a great source of wealth to this country from an export point of view. They are easily loaded and unloaded. A ship can be unloaded on one side, while chemicals are put in by lighter on the other. The export trade must suffer, because the home country will require to have the first call on the products of the chemical industry. The full effect is not being felt now, either in the chemical or engineering industry. These industries are delicately balanced machines, and are dislocated by such an event as being shut down for two weeks, because the pipe-lines are emptied, and one finds that one cannot switch off and then start up where one left off. We shall suffer from this difficulty for months to come.
I go from that to a rather wider point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to the future. It is pretty difficult for us to imagine the future. We have been working out—and I know that others have done the same—how the coal allocations of the country will be handled. First, there is electric power, gas, railways and bunkers; then there is domestic consumption, and then the poor industries. Electric power, gas, railways and bunkers are all essential services and I take it that they will have their full allocation. Will the domestic consumer be cut? Will the industrial user have to take all the cut? Under the Cripps Plan, steel was to get 75 per cent. We do not grudge that, because steel is the basis of a great deal of


our manufacture. The rest of our industries were to get 50 per cent. Now we are down to 30 per cent. We take it that the 30 per cent. is a temporary measure. As I have said before, we simply cannot get through on 30 per cent.
We want to know when we can get the 50 per cent. and for how long we shall have to put up with it. My right hon. Friend talked about a coal budget. When that budget is prepared, are we to have cuts? If we are to have cuts in industry, we would like to know how they are to be made. Are they to be left to circumstances? Are we to struggle on as we have been doing in the last few months? I can assure hon. Members that production suffers when industry works hand to mouth, working short time or with a few weeks on and a few weeks off. That is not the best way. In that way we cannot plan.
Therefore, we presume that some form of rationing will be introduced. If that is true, we would like to know as soon as possible how the scheme will operate. Who will do the classification? Reference was made by my right hon. Friend to the non-essential industries. Of course, what one man calls non-essential, another reckons as vital because his bread and cheese depend upon it. Classification will call for a great deal of care and attention. I urge that anyone dealing with this job should not attempt to deal with it on a hard and fast line of classifying by industries. It must be dealt with by products. For instance, my industry, the electrical industry which supplies the motor world, is sometimes described as "electrical engineering." We have no connection with ordinary electrical engineering. We are part of the motor industry. If we are classed as "electrical engineering" instead of being put in our proper classification, the firms which we supply might have to stop work. Therefore, any allocation must be based on the product itself, traced back through the main supplier to the sub-supplier. Otherwise, we shall have a continuation of the difficulties with which we are putting up today.
Coal is the basis of everything, and in this connection there is one point which I do not think has been thoroughly appreciated. I refer to deterioration in the quality of coal. I do not speak without knowledge. I have investigated very carefully a report on fuel economy and I

was staggered by the result. The report represents a usage of 15 million tons spread over five years. During that period, the calorific value of the supplies to this organisation dropped by at least 5 per cent. When the Prime Minister talks of producing 200 million tons, I hope he is thinking in terms of calorific value as was the practice in prewar days. If we are talking about 200 million tons of the stuff we have been using recently, we must reduce that figure by 10 million or 15 million to allow for deterioration.
I do not know what are the Government's future plans with regard to coal. If we are short of coal, it seems to me we must face up to the question of importing coal. That would be a terrible thing for this country, but I would sooner we imported coal and went short of tobacco and films, rather than that we should, later, have our people out of work and short of food. I suggest that any and every means must be found to increase the allocation of the supplies of fuel, from whatever source we can obtain them and at whatever cost. I should be taken to task by my colleagues in industry, if I did not remind the House of the enormous loss which this country has suffered as the result of the shut down in industry. That loss is far greater than appears on the surface. Owing to the fact that there is a guaranteed week in the engineering industry and that the decision to cut off the current was not announced until works had closed down, wages were paid for two weeks. As the worker now realises, that is a very serious matter. Staffs have been kept on, but there has been no output to cover the costs. The workers have appreciated the position. They have come to us and said, "Look here, cut out this guaranteed week. Let us go on as we used to in the old days." Unfortunately we cannot do that. The agreement is legally binding and it had been carried through. But industry knows and the workers have said that they understand that there will be no wages if there is no permanent output. We must secure output and maintain it.
In conclusion, I say that we in industry will suffer, the workers and the revenue will suffer, because of the large number of factories that, have closed down. Do not let us rejoice that we have switched on again, and think that everything is all over. It is not. We shall suffer, as a result, financially and industrially as a nation, for a very long time.

4.47 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am quite sure that everyone in the House—one almost wishes there were more—will be very concerned indeed about the subject matter with which we are dealing. There are really two problems here There is what I may call the immediate critical problem, and there is the longer-term difficulty. I want to deal with both of those. I think it will be convenient if I take the sequence of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), and deal with the points as I come to them. I do not propose to rake over the past at all. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will find me unforthcoming as regards figures and facts. I have always taken the view that the fullest facts should be given to the country and to industry. I hope that any plans we make as regards rationing schemes for industry, or whatever they may be, will be made in the fullest consultation with industry, because unless we have that full consultation, the plans will not operate successfully.
The first thing the right hon. Gentleman spoke about was the resumption of the supply of electricity to industry. He pointed out, quite rightly, that it is very difficult to decide just the right date. Obviously, everybody wants to get back as quickly as possible. On the other hand, equally obviously, we do not want to get back and then stop again. The difficulties are also quite apparent about having one part of the country shut down, while another part of the country has been opened up. Anyone who was concerned with war production knows the vast ramifications of the sub-contracting system in this country, by which components for a machine made in Glasgow may well be made in Southampton or Plymouth. We have this great complexity of the interlocking of industry. During this shutdown a Committee has sat continuously day by day attempting to deal with that problem. They have been giving a measure of relaxation with regard to some vital services which had to be sustained, in order that some other service could be carried out. That happens, for instance, with a commodity like milk. First, we have to get the bottles, and when we get the bottles we find we have not got the capsules. We are trying to meet this as best we can,

and I think the committee has worked extremely efficiently, to carry out the process.
In regard to the North-Western area and the London and South-Eastern area, we have made further efforts. In the North-Western area, quite contrary to what was said in some of the newspapers about the situation, we are allowing a measure of relaxation this week, in order to prepare industry for next week. That will be helpful and it will not use a great quantity of electricity. There are some special industries which, by. starting off this week, will enable others to get ahead ready for next week, when it is their turn to start. We believe that, in all these matters, we must have as high a degree of flexibility as possible, and we believe that that degree of flexibility can be reached by the regional boards. There, we have the representatives of labour and of the employers, and also of the Government Departments, and they know the circumstances of their own locality far better than anybody at the centre in Whitehall. We believe, therefore, that all this work should be done through the regional fuel allocation committee and the regional boards, and this has been done as regards the North-West region. In the same way, but to a lesser degree, we are arranging a few relaxations in the London area for special cases, and we hope, before very long, to be able to open up in that area as well.
So much for the question of opening up. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to say on what principles we were acting in deciding whether to open up or not. The principle on which we are acting is that the electric generating stations must have, at least a fortnight's supply of coal before they are permitted to open up. That is not necessarily made 100 per cent. and universal. If one of them came up to within, say, 1000 tons of stock of their fortnight's supply, we would not necessarily delay them, but, in many cases, there are special difficulties in stocking coal. There are such places as the Fulham generating station, where we simply cannot unload coal faster than a certain speed and where we cannot accumulate stocks faster than a certain amount per day. It takes weeks to accumulate stocks in places like that. For that kind of case, we are making an emergency dump at Dagenham, which can be


drawn upon if required, and which will be available both for Battersea and Fulham if required. Therefore, we may not need to wait until we get the Fulham stock up to 14 days; we may leave it a day or two short of that amount, knowing that there are reserves at Dagenham in case anything should happen.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the fact that this position could have been foretold from the November, 1945, stocks, and he spoke of the stocks with which we started this period. Of course, that is only one factor in the situation. It depends entirely upon how we allocate our supplies during the winter, and if, this year, we had been able to allocate supplies at the rate which was anticipated by the Central Electricity Board in stating their requirements, we should, in fact, have got through. The trouble was that, against everybody's expectations, there was this phenomenal rise just after Christmas. There was Christmas week, with no industries running, and a consumption of nearly as much as the week before. From 600,000 tons in one week, it went up to 727,000 tons and then to 731,000 tons a week. It may be said that the Central Electricity Board and we ourselves should have foreseen that there was going to be this phenomenal increase in these weeks, but, quite frankly, it was not foreseen. We had budgeted upon what the Central Electricity Board advised us they would require, and, on those requirements, we had to meet the sudden impact of this enormously high demand of an extra 250,000 tons. Of course, this is past history, and I am only explaining it in answer to the question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me.

Mr. Eden: I do not know anything about this matter as between the Government and the Central Electricity Board. I do not know on what data the Board were asked to make their estimate for their supply of solid fuel, but it was clear that, if there was a shortage of solid fuel, there would also be a greater demand upon electricity.

Sir S. Cripps: They made their estimates from the requirements of the undertakings. On that they based their requirements from time to time and made their demand on the Ministry of Fuel and Power—this would now be for the

National Coal Board—for the amount of coal they would require to maintain their supply of electricity. It is on that information that the Ministry of Fuel and Power has to budget in making its allocation between the different uses to which it can be put.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I imagine that the Central Electricity Board must have had in their minds some general estimate of what the solid fuel position was going to be this winter. It is hardly possible that they should have been left to make an estimate in the dark. What we should very much like to know is, what estimates were given to them by the Ministry of Fuel and Power on which to base their demands.

Sir S. Cripps: They took as the basis of their estimates the same figure of the consumption of household fuel as last year, and there has been the same allocation as last year. I think that this year there have been rather better stocks, and, in fact, people have been rather more fully supplied with household coal than they were last winter.

Mr. Jennings: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman making out the most perfect case that has yet been established, indicating that almost dangerous line was being followed?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make his speech afterwards. It is really more convenient to the House that I should make my speech now. It is a rather complicated matter, and, if one is disturbed too much, it stops the trend of the argument.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the difficulties of supply of coal to industry, and the need, on which, of course, we all agree, for some degree of certainty as to what their position is likely to be. I think one has to divide the future, as regards these special industries, into a series of periods. There will be the period in the next two, three, or four days, according to how long the blizzard extends —and there is a new blizzard in the north today, where they have had 10 inches of snow, and difficulties are being re-created in regard to the movement of coal. For some period of two or three weeks after the blizzard is finished we shall have to improvise in order to get round the complications created by the diversion of coal to all sorts of different places.
Thereafter I think to the end of the winter season, let us say to 1st May, we hope to be able to get back to the plan the operation of which had just been started in January. That is what we shall aim to do, and, if we get through, we then get on to a new plan for the summer months, which has to cover, of course, the question of stocking up, which is absolutely essential. Then will follow the plan which will run through the winter months. Obviously, the allocations to different purposes are different in the summer from those in winter, because we have no space heating in summer at all. We have to provide for industry and for the domestic consumer, but the object, so far as industry is concerned, will be to keep the fuel flowing to industry through both summer and winter, so as not to have a great change when the circumstances change. That means we have got to make our stocks such that we are able to carry all our space heating, in addition to our production in winter, out of what we have been able to accumulate during the summer. That matter has not yet been decided in the form of figures. It is obviously a complicated matter, and one about which we shall have to have consultation. However, the right hon. Gentleman can be quite assured that we have that question very fully in mind.

Mr. Eden: Is the Minister going to tell us what the stock figure will be next winter?

Sir S. Cripps: Quite frankly, that figure has not yet been decided. It is a very difficult question to decide, for the following reason. Obviously, we do not want to run down our summer production too far in order to have a high production in the winter. That would not be economical. As a matter of fact, power and fuel will produce more in summer because space heating is not necessary in addition to the power used in production. Therefore, it would be uneconomical to do that. It will depend on how much saving can be made from other sources besides industry, and how far we shall be able to stock up from these other sources without drawing upon industry. When we have found that out, then we must make up our mind whether it is possible to take an extra million tons from industry in the summer, in order to put it into industry in the winter. That is not an example, but an effort to balance summer as against winter production. It

is quite clear, and everybody would agree, that there must be something like 14 million tons, but whether it should be 14, 15 or 16 million, or something a little larger, is where the difficulty arises. Everyone will agree upon the minimum amount, but whether there should be a little bit more or not is debatable, because industry may be seriously affected in the summer by doing more than is absolutely necessary for the winter. That is why I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an accurate figure.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government intend to produce a coal budget in detail. Certainly they do. Later, I will give some figures, not of the future, but of the coal budget of the recent past, and make some observations on them which may be helpful with regard to the future. Then he asked whether we were going to bring industrial consumption into line with requirements. Quite obviously, if there is not enough coal with which to supply industry, there must be some form of rationing scheme, either the sort we started in January, or some other. There is a great deal to be said for having a scheme with a basic allocation and a pool from which to supply people who require extra fuel for either the urgency or the priority of their business. We have not yet had time to see whether it will work properly, but we shall be discussing that and other matters with industry, and we shall learn whether they still think it the best scheme under the circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman also said something about the very wide variety of allocations which took place in the early winter, and what chaos it caused. If I may say so, I think he rather exaggerated the position. I know, from the figures of production, and especially from the export figures which were rapidly rising at that time, that there was no evidence in production of any major inconvenience of any sort arising as regards fuel production. It was not, I think, until after Christmas, or at the beginning of Christmas time, that this major inconvenience started to develop. However, that, again, is past history, and perhaps we need not go into it
The next thing the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and on this also we can all agree, was that an allocation of 30 per cent. is not a sufficient allocation upon which to run industry. That, of course,


is perfectly true, but we do not want to give figures higher than that if we cannot more or less assure them, until we know that the weather has finished causing these. disturbances, and until we see how quickly we can get back from the dislocation caused by the diversion of traffic in all sorts of places. Our objective, obviously, is to get back, at the very least, to what we had in January, when we introduced the scheme appertaining to industry. But when we can do that, it is impossible to say.
The right hon. Gentleman inquired what steps, in our view, should be taken to mitigate the effects of this deficiency of coal. There, of course, we do not want to dictate to industries how they should conduct their business. Whether they find it convenient to work three days a week, because they have not enough coal to work more, or to work three weeks in four, or to work different hours, must be a matter for the particular convenience of each industry, in the light of the circumstances, and in the light of the purposes for which the fuel is required. If an industry requires coal largely for power purposes, its case would be different from that of an industry which wanted it for space heating purposes. After this cold spell, the demand for space heating will not be so heavy as it has been while the severe weather lasted.
Then the right hon. Gentleman asked whether I could give him some facts regarding the domestic situation. I will certainly give him such facts as I know. First, I think I ought to remind the House of the figures of consumption of domestic coal over the last few years, because there has already been a very large reduction in domestic coal which, consequently, does not provide a very good source of any further major savings. In 1942–43 it was 37.6 million; in 1943–44 it was 44.3 million; in 1944–45 it was 43.6 million; and in 1945–46 it was 28.9 million. It will be seen from these figures that there has already been quite a severe cut. Naturally, the position is different as between the North and the South. The ration, or the allowance, in the North is 15 cwts., and in the south 34 cwts. The difference as regards difficulties of delivery is also there The south, as a whole, lies farther from the coalfields, and the North, as a whole, much closer to them. Therefore, it is always more important to

have big stocks for the South than it is for the North, which has nearer access to the supply.
On 26th October the five Southern regions carried a stock of 1,250,000 tens of house coal, compared with 700,000 tons in the preceding year. As a result of those good stocks which had been built up during the winter period the north had preference in deliveries, because the South could make up its lack of deliveries from its good stocks. So far as winter allocations are concerned, the North is, up to date, 5½ per cent. down on its allocation and the South 8½ per cent. down on its allocation. That is the shortfall of the allocations, and one of the reasons why the South has had difficulty is because there has been a very large increase in the population of London. There has been an increase of about one million in the London population, due to people coming back, and this has led to some concentration of demand in London, over and above what was expected. Up to 15th February, for the winter period, the disposal to the Southern areas amounted to 330,000 tons more than in 1945, owing, no doubt, to the cold weather. The result was that by 15th February the stocks in the Southern region had fallen from one and a quarter million tons to 458,000 tons.

Major Lloyd-George: In the South?

Sir S. Cripps: In the South. This compares with 405,000 tons on the same date in 1945. That means that, roughly speaking, there were two weeks' deliveries over all, but in some places there were much less than two weeks' deliveries, and in some places much more. Of course, the unevenness has been emphasised by the difficulties of transport in the last three or four weeks, so that the unevenness has tended to grow.

Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise for not understanding a word which, perhaps, is a technical term much better understood by those who are well informed in these matters. What does "disposal" mean in this connection?

Sir S. Cripps: It means the actual coal sold and delivered by the merchant

Mr. Pickthorn: I am obliged.

Sir S. Cripps: The position has been made more difficult by the fact that during this last fortnight of emergency,


40,000 tons has had to be taken from the house coal in order to keep the gas going. When the difficulties on the North Sea occurred, the coal could not be obtained by that means and, therefore, it had to be taken from the house coal. Altogether, the stocks, though slightly higher than last year, are probably not quite so evenly dispersed as they were last year, and if this cold weather continues, there will be difficulty about house stocks in London and in the south generally. I think that is really the whole of the position so far as we can give it to the right hon. Gentleman at this stage.
The coal position as regards domestic consumers is, as the right hon. Gentleman has very justly said, closely linked up with gas and electricity. We must consider the three things together, because they are three alternative forms of cooking and space heating, though not lighting, which are the two big factors in the winter consumption. The right hon. Gentleman spoke particularly of the difficulties of persons in rural areas as regards the allocation of solid fuel. We appreciate those difficulties, especially in times of difficult transport. I know that my cottage in the country has been shut off from everything for over two weeks, and we cannot get deliveries of anything. But there is always the fact to be borne in mind that the people in the country do have access to woods while the people in the towns generally do not. I feel that a good deal more might be done locally to try to organise the cutting of timber into logs, and so on, for the convenience of people in the locality. In areas that I know, there are many trees lying in woods, and their removal would improve the woods and provide very good fuel if they were properly cut up. I only mention that by the way.
Though it may be true, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that the shortage of coal has contributed to gas and electric power usage by the ordinary domestic consumer, I think it is probably rather the case that the consumer is turning over to that type of heating than that he has been driven to it by any shortage of fuel. I think there is a tremendous movement to get away from solid fuel because of the conveniences of electricity and gas. Whatever the reason is, of course, it is undoubted that there has been an enormous increase in domestic consumption, and that is certainly

one of the points where we have got to look for savings in the coming year. It seems certain that we shall have to adopt some form of limitation or rationing, or whatever we may like to call it, for domestic users of gas and electricity during the coming year; and, until we can decide upon that, we shall have to maintain the present cuts upon them, because we cannot afford to release them until we have some alternative, if we are to give industry any reasonable quantity of supplies.
The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question, which, of course, is another very important one, of the limitation placed upon electrical supplies, not by fuel but by generating plant. In the medium long-term, that is a more important and more difficult question than any other. It is not a position from which we can recover quickly. The right hon. Gentleman knows that only too well. I remember the struggles he had many years ago to get orders placed for more plant which, if it had been possible to place those orders would now be coming in to be used. Unfortunately, they could not be placed and so the plant is not coming in, and this will mean waiting two or three years at least before we can get sufficient generating plant to balance even our existing demand, let alone the demand which will arise in two or three years time.
That raises a very serious and difficult question. After consultation with the Central Electricity Board, we have come to the conclusion that there is only one way in which it can be dealt with, and that is by putting a large proportion of industry on night shift or on hours when the rest of industry is not working. There is really no other solution. If we can do that—if, for instance, we can get a third of industry to go on night shift every week—I believe we should be able to get through, so far as generating capacity is concerned, without any load shedding. The alternative is to go on running, but every day through the winter period we shall have to shed the load because we cannot carry the peak load. It is most disturbing for industry to have these constant sheddings. I know all the inconveniences and difficulties of staggering hours to which the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) referred. He and I experienced them in the war; we know all the difficulties of transport and


the rest of it, and we cannot expect to overcome them in 24 hours or a week or a fortnight. It is a thing which has to be worked out. We must get agreement. We must get the workers to agree, but we must start working it out at once because it is the only way in which we can get our industries running at anything like full output, in view of the shortage of generating plant.

Sir P. Bennett: I presume the Government will take into consideration the relaxation of the regulations which are hampering us in this respect?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, we have that point in mind. The hon. Gentleman refers to women and young persons?

Sir P. Bennett: We do not like asking to do it. We do not like women and young persons to work in such conditions, but if we are to run a factory, balanced as it is, on a night shift, they are part of the formula.

Sir S. Cripps: We appreciate that, and we may have to try to adjust matters, but that is a matter which must be considered. We may have to be prepared to face even more difficult things than that if we are to get our economic foundations firm again. However, that is going into questions which should be debated on the White Paper when it comes before us.
The final point which the right hon. Gentleman raised concerned the question of production. We are, of course, conscious that the key to this situation is more production so far as solid fuel is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we have put our target in the White Paper so low as 200 million tons, when in 1941 there was a larger production. We have tried in the White Paper to be realistic as to what we think is likely to be achieved in the way of targets, and 1947 production grows out of 1945 and 1946. It does not grow out of 1941. We have, therefore, to see what we can do to improve on 1945 and 1946 production, and not what we can do to get back to some other date, such as 1941. Taking it by and large, and with the five day week coming in, probably in the middle of the year, or whenever it is, we shall not be able to get much more than 200 million tons this year.
We shall not, of course, stop if we find ourselves getting there; we shall not put

on any brake. The target in that sense is the sky—"the sky's the limit." But we thought that realistic picture was a much better one, because if once one puts it too high and then bases all the rest of the programme on a wrong figure at the bottom, there are all sorts of complications which make it all very unrealistic. I hope, as the right hon. Gentleman hopes, that this figure will be exceeded, and we have at least the encouraging information that last week's figure was over 4 million tons, including opencast, and last week there was not the best of weather either for mining, getting to work, or anything else. If the spirit is continued which is showing itself now in the mines, I hope we may well exceed the figure of 200 million tons.

Mr. Eden: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving such full replies to my questions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned as it were almost in passing, a five-day week in May. I do not think the House has ever been given an open intimation of that before from any quarter.

Sir S. Cripps: I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power made a statement some months ago on all the points of the Miners' Charter. I do not remember the date, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not either, but I am informed that it was made.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Not to the House?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, to the House. I hope I have covered all the points which the right hon. Gentleman put to me, and I would like now to add a few points of my own in order to give him a little more information. I would like to deal with the question of what the problems and the difficulties are as regards the allocation of solid fuel for industry. When the revised allocation scheme, which has wrongly been dubbed with my name[Interruption.]—I thought perhaps it was on the basis that everything that failed should be dubbed with my name—was brought into operation on 10th January, it was done on what was then believed to be, and I think was, as realistic a basis as was possible. At that date about 220,000 tons a week were needed to meet the full requirements of the iron and steel industry, and at least 750,000 tons for the remainder of industry, including engineering; that is to say, taking the two together, 970,000 tons a week were


required at that date. That would have been the allocation, as it was then called, and that was, of course, on the basis of rigorous fuel economy and no wastage; but that would, on the statement of the industrialists, have kept them all going full bat.
Under the scheme, we hoped to supply the iron and steel industry with three-quarters of its requirements. We reduced it to three-quarters because, owing to the reductions being made in other industries, it was no good boosting up the iron and steel industry if the user industries were not going to be able to take iron and steel from it. We calculated then that we should be able to allot about 400,000 tons a week to the whole of the rest of industry, and, in addition, 100,000 tons to the pool which was to be able to serve special cases in the special areas. That made 500,000 tons in all, as against the requirements of 750,000 tons; so that, roughly speaking, it was two-thirds of the requirements which was anticipated would then be available.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, before the scheme came into full operation and we could see how it worked, we had to divert that coal to the power stations in order to build up their stocks because of this sudden load which came upon them, and in the result, during the three weeks ending 1st, 8th and 15th February, the following are the figures of what has actually gone, compared with the figures I have given, to the iron and steel industry and other industries. For iron and steel, 1st February, 178,000 tons; 8th February, 162,000 tons; 15th February, 160,000 tons. That was compared with the 220,000 tons which they required, or 75 per cent. of 220,000 tons which they were promised under the scheme. Engineering has had, in the first week, 64,000 tons; in the second week, 55,500 tons; and in the third week, 57,500 tons. Other industries have had 480,000 tons in the first week, 433,000 tons in the second week, and 424,000 tons in the third week. There was a falling off as the coal was taken to stock up the power stations.
The total for engineering and other industries has been 551,000 tons, 488,000 tons and 482,000 tons, compared, it will be observed, with the 500,000 tons with which we hoped to be able to supply them under the scheme; so that they have had, in fact, more on the average in those three

weeks than they would have had if the scheme had been fully carried out; but there is this great difference, that it has not been distributed in the same way. Works that have been near collieries have, owing to the great difficulties of transport, had much more than they expected; others in difficult transport areas may have had nothing. We have not suffered really from failure to distribute, but from distributing to the wrong places owing to the difficulties of diverting supplies, the actual blockages on railways, and other things. It is, therefore, obviously hopeful that, as soon as we can get back the flow of the traffic in the right direction, we shall be able to maintain that 500,000 tons figure which, in fact, we maintained in quantity, but not in distribution, over the last three weeks.
There is one factor of which I would remind the House. It is that we constantly talk about coal in overall tonnages as if it was one commodity. It is not. It is dozens of commodities. One of the great difficulties is to get the right grades to the right places, and it is a far more complicated plan than merely saying that everybody can have 50 per cent. of what they had before, because it is 50 per cent. of different things, and one cannot swap one person's coal with another person's coal, because probably the boilers will not take it, or it is wanted for a different purpose. Therefore, to get it sorted right again, once it has got wrong, is a complicated process, and it may take several weeks to get it right. That is one of the reasons why we cannot at this time say to any given person that he shall have so much coal. We can say that, in total, industry will probably have the 500,000 tons, but we cannot say who will get it. We can, of course, aim as quickly as possible, through the Regional Boards, to get back to the right allocations.
With regard to the stocks of industry at the present time—and here, again, of course, one can deal only in gross figures, and cannot deal in detail—the stocks of the iron and steel industry in the first week I mentioned were 274,000 tons; in the second week 243,000 tons; and in the third week, 234,000 tons. Therefore, over this period, they have not only had practically the deliveries they would have had under the scheme, but have also been drawing on their stocks, so that their production ought not to be as seriously down as some people may think. Regarding


other industries, the stocks were 1,121,000 tons in the first week, 1,004,000 tons in the second week, and 964,000 tons in the third week. They have been drawing on stocks during that period as well as getting the coal which they have been having allocated, although not always to the right place. Therefore, in total, even during this period industry has been using as much fuel as it would have used under the allocation scheme of 10th January. The deduction I think we can make from that is, that despite the great difficulties and disadvantages a great deal of industry has managed to carry on, otherwise the stock position today would obviously be a great deal better than it in fact is.
The only other matter I want to deal with is the gas position. The gas position is a very serious one. Since the middle of January the total allocation of coal to the gas industry has been at the rate of half a million tons a week; and consumption from the middle of January to 8th February was round about 500,000 to 550,000 tons a week. The result was that stocks were drawn upon. At 8th February the stocks amounted to 915,000 tons, or 1.72 weeks supply. The week following, when the steamers could not come down from the North-East coast, stocks fell to 850,000 tons. The week before last they recovered to 934,000 tons, or 1.75 weeks supply; that was the occasion on which 40,000 tons was taken from the house coal in order to work up the stocks of gas, amongst other things. The position, therefore, is precarious as regards gas at the present time, particularly as these stocks again are not evenly distributed. There are some places with much smaller stocks than others, and there is need for the utmost economy in the use of gas. It may be—though it is not in immediate contemplation—that some measures will have to be taken in regard to gas, such as have been taken in regard to electricity. It is essential that economy should be exercised. We hope that with the fall of space heating, directly the weather gets a little warmer and the days a little longer, we may be able to carry the gas industry without further trouble.
I hope I have given the House the facts which will help them to arrive at some understanding of these extremely complex problems. I can assure hon. Members we are anxious for their co-operation, in whatever part of the House they sit, be-

cause this is a desperately difficult jab. There is no need for people to be unduly depressed by it. It is a very difficult situation; it has been critical, but it is not so critical as it was. However, as long as the present weather disturbances last, it must remain critical. What we have to face is the long-term difficulty which will follow, and we have to be prepared to work out schemes which will be very unpleasant for people if we are to be able to maintain our industries. Hitherto we have taken the attitude—I think perhaps rightly; it has been taken by all parties on this subject-matter—that the domestic consumer must be regarded in advance of industry; that is to say, industry is the residuary legatee so far as fuel is concerned. We must, I think, reconsider whether those are the right circumstances for our present economic situation.
In that respect, I think I should tell the House—as I promised the right hon. Gentleman a little earlier I would—exactly how the coal has been allocated on an average per week over the last month; that is to say, the month from the week ended 25th January to the week ended 25th February. The figures are: gas, 460,000; electricity, 620,000; waterworks, 6,000; railways, 283,000; coke ovens, 350,000; iron and steel, 172,000; other industries, including engineering, 530,000; Northern Ireland, 45,000; house coal, 531,000; collieries 220,000; miners' coal, 100,000; miscellaneous, 192,000; exports and foreign bunkers, 119,000; making a total of 3,628,000 tons, which was the average. That shows the manner in which it has been distributed over this emergency period, quite apart from any precise and planned schemes, in order to keep the various services going. If one observes those figures and takes gas as a priority, electricity as a priority, railways as a priority, waterworks as a priority, coke ovens as a priority, iron and steel have to have a priority, Northern Ireland must be given some, and if house coal has a priority—miners' coal and collieries cannot be touched—there is nothing left to touch except industry.

Mr. Scolllan: Does "export" mean bunkers?

Sir S. Cripps: Export includes foreign bunkers, not home bunkers. Today it is, practically speaking, entirely foreign bunkers. I give the House those figures,


because when we come to the question of trying to arrive at some system for seeing that industry is not always left till last, but does get enough for that production which is essential for our economic life in this country, we will see by studying those figures how variations can be made, so that, though other people suffer, industry will be able to carry on.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House with regard to the export of coal, whether it is entirely limited to bunkering?

Sir S. Cripps: There is a very small quantity of inferior coal in addition to that. For instance, places like Eire have to have some coal; that cannot be stopped completely; but it is really nothing; it does not really come into the picture at all so far as quantity is concerned. It is not one per cent. I hope that today, in this Debate, hon. Members will give us all their constructive suggestions, which may help us in the solution of this longer term or middle term difficulty. I can assure the House that we shall pay the greatest attention to everything that is said.

5.38 p.m.

Major Lloyd-George: The President of the Board of Trade has given us a not very cheerful picture. However, I think the whole House will be grateful to hint for having made it clear, which is what we always expect from him, even on an extremely difficult and complicated matter. He could not have made it clearer than he did. One of the things that has come out of this Debate is, that it has shown how very difficult it is to localise an occurrence of this character, and how difficult it is to put such a situation right, once it has occurred. The Minister said he would not rake over past things; nor do I propose to do so this afternoon. In his concluding remarks the right hon. Gentleman referred to the real problem before us as being the long-term policy as opposed to what is being done at the moment. I agree that all we can do at the moment is to mitigate, as far as possible, the results of the disastrous occurrences of the last few weeks. Therefore, for a very short time I want to deal with the Government's ideas about the long-term policy.
The White Paper shows that in 1946 we mined about 180 million tons of coal, and about nine million tons of opencast. The

right hon. and learned Gentleman said this afternoon that the Government were budgeting for 200 million in 1947. The White Paper goes on to say that even that figure is rather the minimum than the maximum. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that was a realistic figure. I am not sure that it is not slightly optimistic. It is expected that, by measures to be taken, the manpower of the industry will reach 730,000 by the end of 1947, which will, I think, give an average over the year of 712,000. On the basis of the production of deep mine coal today, that should not give more than 185 million tons. That would mean that the right hon. Gentleman would have to look for 15 million tons from opencast or other sources. Does he think that the output per man will be increased sufficiently this year to make up the difference between the 190 million and the 200 million? I would ask him one question. It is a question which always excites controversy and some feeling, but I should like to know from the Government what their view is with regard to the present rate of absenteeism. The rate in 1942 was over 10 per cent.; it is now nearly 16 per cent.; aria the average last year was 15.9 per cent. If that were reduced by five per cent. would it make a difference on present production of about 9,000,000 tons? I should like to know what are the Government's views on the possibility of getting that rate decreased.
Now we come to what I consider to be almost the most important question of all, and that is the question of stocks. Whatever the weather in this country, whatever the interruption of transport, which, in this year particularly, and in other years as well, has been very severe, it is on the stocks that we rely to see our industries and public utilities through. Local disturbances are almost impossible to avoid, because transport may not be able to move at all. We have our sea transport interrupted; we have our rail transport interrupted. That is the reason why it has been the policy over many years to have sufficient stocks to meet that eventuality. 'Therefore, the stock position is vital to any budget that is produced.
I go back to a point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in regard to electricity stocks. We consumed in the winter of 1945 to


1946, a comparatively mild winter, just over 2,000,000 tons of coal in the electricity undertakings out of stocks. We started this winter with almost exactly that amount of coal in stock for the electricity undertakings—just over 2,000,000 tons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, if we had not had that bad week at Christmas, and the bad weather thereafter, we might have got through. What I would point out to him is that it was in a mild winter that we consumed 2,000,000 tons out of stocks, and that, therefore, if we had had a winter similar to last year's, stocks would have been down to zero by the end of March or the middle of April. Our supplies last year, or our consumption last year, according to the Minister in his speech the other day, was, I think, based on a weekly average by the Central Electricity Board of 189,000 tons. The Central Electricity Board's estimates for this winter were 575,000 tons weekly. Therefore, there was an increased budget by the Central Electricity Board; and yet we started the winter with a stock of exactly the amount we had consumed in the whole of the previous winter. Therefore, I still say that the situation was dangerous in October.
I refer to that only because the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to it. I do not propose to pursue it at the moment. But the key to the whole position in public utilities or industries must be stocks. I see that in the White Paper it is stated that there are no more stocks to drawn upon. I take it that there is a little licence in that statement; there must be one or two tons knocking about. But I agree that by the end of the winter, as I anticipated before, they will be down to a very low level, indeed. My right hon. Friend asked what the Government's idea was of a safe stock position at the beginning of next winter. If I may take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own figure of production of 200 million tons, and the consumption last year of 194,000,000 tons, I assume—we hope, at least—that this year it will be the same, and that leaves us 6,000,000 to put into stock. If we are going to do more—

Sir S. Cripps: May I correct the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? In the winter we shall consume that stock. We stock during the summer and consume the stock during the winter. We do not leave it there for ever.

Major Lloyd-George: Yes, but really the Government are living from month to month, by this budgeting. A proper budget is for a year. I suggest that we start budgeting now for the next coal year, at least. Therefore, we assume that consumption is going to be so much, and we assume that production is going to be so much. If production is less than consumption, we know we have to take so much out of stock. If production is greater than consumption, we can add the surplus production to stock. Therefore, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman says production will be 200 million tons, and if consumption is expected to be 194 million tons, I assume they can add 6,000,000 tons to stocks.

Sir S. Cripps: I think we are talking of two different things. That would be the stock at the end of the year. If 5,000,000 tons were saved for the previous year, the total saving would be II million tons, but that would not mean that we should put 10 million into stock to consume in the winter.

Major Lloyd-George: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to get a figure which has been attained in the last two years, roughly 18 million tons in stock at the end of October, he would have to put into stock during the summer, a very large amount, of anything from 14,000,000 tons, which is at least two and a half times the rate ever put into stock in this country before. I am putting this point only to indicate the difficulties to be faced if we are to meet next winter on a proper basis. Eighteen million tons, surely, is a reasonably safe figure, if we are not going to gamble on the weather —which I suggest, we had better not try to do again. Can that be done this summer? I do not know.
Then comes the question of distribution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the difficulties created by this present weather position, in that we get uneven stocking throughout the country. Some places are cut off, and stocks are reduced there. It is vitally important, when stocking for industry, that stocks should be as evenly distributed as possible. Complete evenness is not possible. But can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether he thinks it will be possible during the summer—it will be a gigantic task—to restore the level, to remove the inequalities which obviously


must have obtained in many industries as a result of the severe weather? It seems to be an extremely important thing. The White Paper mentioned—and this is one reason why I think that that figure of 200 million tons is somewhat optimistic—conversion from coal to oil. That was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in his coal budget last year. He hoped to get 3,000,000 tons of coal saved by that means. He had to come back later to say—it was through no fault of his—that the equipment for this was not easy to get. Can I ask him whether he thinks now that the necessary equipment for that very important conversion will be more readily obtainable in the next few months than it has been in the past? The other point is about opencast. If the Minister does not get the increase in deep-mined coal, there will be a greater burden on opencast mining. Last year he anticipated getting 1,500,000 tons out of it—I do not know whether he thinks that figure will be achieved by the end of April; I should like to know.

Mr. Shinwell: Excessive flooding has prevented that.

Major Lloyd-George: I am only asking a question, as it is important to the rest of the budget if he does not get it; I can well understand that difficulties do arise in January and February. If he does not get it, it means that a very much greater production will be asked from opencast mining than was asked last year. I would like to know what is the position with regard to the more modern machinery, with greater capacity, that they have in America, and what is the chance of getting some of that machinery over in time to have an effect upon this year's budget?
The third thing mentioned to balance this budget was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon called "drastic steps to reduce the non-industrial consumption of coal, gas and electricity." I wonder whether the Government think they can really do much more in the way of drastic reduction of the consumption of electricity, gas and coal by the domestic consumer? Already the reduction in solid fuel for the domestic consumer, I had thought, had been about 14,000,000 tons since the war, but the Minister's figures this afternoon made it nearer 16,000,000 tons. It is slightly over one-third of what the domestic consumer enjoyed before the war.

Sir S. Cripps: It is 30 per cent.

Major Lloyd-George: Just about a third, then. There are many people in this country, especially among the poorer sections of the community, who have no alternative. In this city of ours there are many people who rely upon their hundredweight a week, and it is the only heating and cooking they have in the whole house. A gas range anyway is no alternative for a heater. In the North of England, in particular, solid fuel is much more prevalent than it is in the South. We have had a cut of 30 per cent.—

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did understand me to say, did he not, that we were not proposing to cut the domestic consumer's solid fuel?

Major Lloyd-George: Yes, and I am. proposing that it should be increased. To come back to my argument, while, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, there is a certain amount of reason for people preferring other means because they are handier and more laboursaving, there is no doubt at all that the great increase in gas and electricity consumption has undoubtedly been due to the cut in solid fuel. I do not think anybody could dispute that. The Minister himself the other day said that in London the increase in the domestic consumption of electricity was startling, and I suggest that that is entirely due to the fact that solid fuel has been so drastically cut. Wood fuel, which the right hon. Gentleman suggested—

Mr. Julius Silverman: How can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that, when the fact is that the consumption of solid fuel is the same this year as it was last year?

Major Lloyd-George: I am sorry, but that is not really so. The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the last month or two, and the hon. Gentleman will see, if he looks at the figures for 1946 in the Digest, that the disposal of solid fuel this year was something like 1,000,000 tons less than in the year before. I dare say that in the month of December last year it was up to the previous December, but it you take the whole year it is about 1,000,000 down, according to the Digest. Therefore, if I may pursue my point, people are being driven to utilising other methods of heating because they are being


deprived to a large extent of solid fuel. We may deplore that, but the fact remains that the domestic consumer has had very severe cuts put upon him in succeeding years during the war. In regard to wood fuel, which we have tried before to get going, the difficulty of course is labour. Transport was a difficulty during the war as well, but labour, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is a very serious difficulty now because unfortunately most of the wood is not in accessible places. It is a very serious problem, but I think something might perhaps be done about it.
I doubt whether it would be possible to impose any further drastic cuts—and "drastic" was the word used—on top of the present cut of 30 per cent. on domestic users. Would it not be better to try to increase the allocation of solid fuel to domestic consumers? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was more in stock this year, especially in the South, than there was the year before. Has not that been at the expense of the cellars of the domestic users in the South, because the intake of the merchants, and the steady rise in the merchants' stocks in the yards in Britain this year has been most remarkable, but there has been a decline in disposal to the domestic consumer?

Mr. Shinwell: indicated dissent.

Major Lloyd-George: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he must not produce figures if he does not believe them. The fact is that the domestic fuel consumption for 1946 is less than for 1945

Mr. Shinwell: Only at certain times of the year.

Major Lloyd-George: Yes, but we must take like for like. Either these figures mean something or they mean nothing, and I sometimes wonder whether they do mean anything. These figures, I take it relate to the calendar year, and the end of the period was referred to. The fact remains that stocks have been built up at a rapid rate, and I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman last summer that the reason for that was that disposal to the domestic consumers was not as great as in previous years. There is no doubt at all that whatever the stocks in the merchants' yards may be, the stocks in the consumers' cellars are much lower

than they have been for many years Therefore, I would like to see a restoration to a certain extent of solid fuel for domestic consumers. I believe it would pay us to do it, because gas coal is a special coal, and anything that can be saved in that direction is an advantage. In view of the plant position in electricity, anything which could be saved there would be an advantage. I think it could he done.
I regret to have to say this, but must we go on for the whole of next year with planned cuts throughout industry and cuts to our domestic consumers? Is there nothing else that we can do to restore the position? One hates to suggest this, but is it really impossible to get some coal from outside for this temporary emergency? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has obviously missed my point. If we can get coal it will help electrical power, and electricity can be made out of coal even if it comes from outside this country. The point I want to make is that, if we find we cannot get through this winter, or this next year, except by short time in our industries and at the expense of further hardship for people who have already suffered considerable hardships in the last seven or eight years, would it not be worth while trying to get some coal from outside for this emerge-icy? The question of currency of course arises, but which is the better for this country—to sacrifice some tobacco and some films, or cut our industries? But we do not have to go to America for coal. Is there any reason why we should not explore South Africa? I believe they have a surplus of coal. During the war they developed their coal mines very considerably and increased their production from about 19,000,000 to 29,000,000 tons. Would it not be wiser, taking a long view, to get some coal from outside with a view to avoiding as much as possible the dislocation of our industry which, under whatever plan is worked out, after what the right hon. Gentleman said today, is bound to exist for some considerable time?
As I have said to the Minister before, although there is nothing much that can be done for this winter except to save what we can from the wreckage it is important that we shall know exactly where we are for next winter. Whatever we do, whether the Government think they can get the coal from outside or not, I


beg of them to make up their minds what the allocation is to be, so that people can get used to the life they have to live, and not have these decisions thrown at them as has been the case in the last few weeks. If it is vital to have a cut of 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 30 per cent., I beg the Government to let the country know at the earliest date, so that the people instead of having to improvise, can adapt their lives accordingly.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Frank Byers: First, I should like to offer my congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade for the very lucid way in which he dealt with this problem and with the questions put to him. Before I turn to the main topic of this Debate, which is the resumption of industry, I should like to draw attention to one item, which I consider to be of immediate constitutional importance. I am referring to the suppression for the last few weeks of certain periodicals, by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I am sorry to intrude this subject into this Debate, but I feel it is a matter which has to be ventilated in this House.
It appears that an arrangement was arrived at with a trade association, namely, the Press Periodicals Association, whereby all periodicals were to be suppressed for a period of a fortnight. The question I wish to put to the Minister of Fuel and Power, which is of constitutional importance, is this: Was there any statutory authority for that order? The only thing which has been issued from the Ministry of Fuel and Power has been a Press release. I would not have introduced this subject, in a Debate of this kind but for these reasons: An emergency arose, and the Minister took it upon himself to suppress free organs of the Press for a given time, without any statutory authority whatsoever, by coming to an agreement with a trade association, which represents only 60 per cent. of the journals involved. Is it the case that he can control the publication of these periodicals merely by a piece of bluff or a piece of sharp practice, and I say that advisedly? In the next crisis which may arise, it may well be that an order will be issued from the Public Relations Department of the Board of Trade that all shops are to close for a fortnight, without any debate in Parliament, and with no statutory authority. There is no legal

authority for this at all, and therefore this is a matter which should have the attention of the House. It cannot be laughed off by hon. Members on the other side, who claim to believe in Parliamentary democracy. I say frankly, as far as Liberal publications arc concerned, they will still appear, because there is no statutory authority whatever for putting on this ban. I should also like to ask what right has the Minister of Fuel and Power in this crisis or any crisis to decree that duplicated copies, which do not involve the use of power in their production, shall also not appear. The Minister, to my mind, is responsible for the control of power, and not for the control of publications. I feel it my duty to draw the attention of the House to this very grave inroad upon its privileges as a legislative body.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: May I ask the hon. Member whether he does not recognise that the matter was raised, in the first instance, from this side of the House by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg)?

Mr. Byers: That may be so, but the fact remains that this suppression is continuing. I do not know, because I was not there at the time, whether the hon. Member pointed out that there was no statutory authority for the suppression.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I did not do that, but I take exception to the hon. Member saying we on this side of the House are laughing it off.

Mr. Byers: I was referring to two hon. Members sitting behind the President of the Board of Trade, who seem to find something funny in this, and I absolve the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge). I suggest that this is a matter which should be put right now. I ask whether a Bill of Indemnity is to be brought in, and if not, whether these people who had a duty to publish these papers and who by not publishing them have suffered losses, have a claim against the Crown for action taken by a Minister without statutory authority. I should like to have an answer from the Minister on that matter.
I turn now to the main subject of this Debate, which is the resumption of industry. What is extremely worrying to many of us, particularly those of us who regard ourselves as progressive, is the


absence of a plan by the planners. This Government prided themselves upon their planning, and they are 'bringing into disrepute the very word "planning". By "planning," the Government mean one of two things, neither of which is planning. First, they mean the detailed regulation and direction of the affairs of the people, and second, they mean a series of incoherent improvisations, which I do not call planning. I wish to ask whether we have got a real plan, and if we have the machinery to carry it out. While I am referring to planning, I should also like to ask whether we have got the object clear, because having had six years' experience of planning and operations in war at a very testing time, I can claim to speak with a little authority on planning. What is our object in resuming industry? I would say it is to ensure the maximum useful output of goods and services, with the minimum of dislocation compatible with the building-up of adequate stocks by next October, If that is the object, then certain factors which arise deserve consideration. The one thing which worries me about this Debate is that there has not been enough emphasis on increasing the production of coal. I believe that to be fundamental to the whole problem of the resumption of industry. The production of coal must be brought up to the potential demand as rapidly as possible. We cannot do that immediately, I agree, and therefore, in the interim period while production is increasing, demand has to be controlled with the object of narrowing the gap between production and an uncontrolled potential demand.
I implore the Government not to be defence-minded on this, or to think the real object of the exercise is to save, cut down and retrench. The real object of this exercise is to "get cracking" on production of coal. If that is the plan, and the Government accept that abject, it means a continuous review of production, demand and possible savings. One of the most terrifying aspects of the recent crisis was the exposure of the country to the administrative weaknesses of this Government and their machinery. I say "terrifying," because the country had the right to believe that the Government were taking certain elementary precautions and steps to prevent the development of the situation in which we find

ourselves today. I never believed that they were going ahead without taking these precautions, without a continuous review of what was happening, and without taking the necessary steps to prevent trouble.
Perhaps I had too much confidence in the Government. I admit it. But even the elementary rules of planning seem to have been abrogated by this Government in the past few weeks. The tale of the last two months, to anybody who has had military experience, is like that of the third-rate brigade headquarters on its first military exercise. I assumed that the various things which any planner had learnt would have been put into operation. Apparently not. There was no clear picture of what was required; there was no foresight. We had the admission from the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon that perhaps the Government should have foreseen what happened, but did not. There was no coordination of Government Departments. There were, apparently, no alternative plans available, worked out on different assumptions. No one with any military experience would have dreamed of going into an operation without alternative plans being at hand—

Mr. Scollan: But there were endless supplies available during the war.

Mr. Byers: Perhaps I can speak with more authority on this than the hon. Member. For my sins, I happened to find myself, for more than 2½ years, dealing, on the "G" side, with the control of items which were in short supply, including manpower and equipment. I was working about 17 hours a day. I want to ask what machinery is to be set up to ensure the co-ordination of Ministries, a continuous review of these problems in order to achieve the target of stocks by October, increased production and so forth? The system of Cabinet Committees appears to have failed lamentably. Now, a Ministerial Committee has been set up. Is that to be permanent machinery? If so, what is the position of the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Transport on that Committee?
I cannot conceive a proper system of machinery which bases itself on two or three Ministers who are fully occupied with legislation in this House. Who is running transport at the moment? [An HON. MEMBER: "The railmen."] That may


be so, but from my experience of this type of planning it is essential that the Chairman of the Ministerial Committee should have by him somebody who can give him the latest facts and figures, and be cross-examined upon them in the Committee room. That person would have estimates, and it would be expected that he would have gone into the matter so deeply that he could answer every question. That is the way it should happen. But the Minister of Transport is spending three mornings a week in Standing Committee at present on the Transport Bill, and next week he will spend five periods a week on the Bill. The Minister of Fuel and Power is doing the same with electricity. I voted for the Electricity Bill, but when I look at this machinery I wonder how these Ministers can do their own jobs properly. Further, the senior civil servants of their Departments have to attend these Standing Committees. That is not the type of machinery that will achieve the target we want by October. We should set up a proper economic general staff, and the quicker that is done the better.
I want to say a few words about reliable estimates. The Minister of Fuel and Power told us that the Central Electricity Board had let him down over estimates. Their estimate for the winter months was 587,000 tons of coal for electricity supply. But the average consumption for December was over 600,000 tons. The Minister's job is to check up on those estimates. When you discover that an estimate has been exceeded tremendously you "get cracking," get your experts in, and ask them to look at the assumptions, and so forth. I do not think that the point made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George) was fully appreciated on the Government benches. I think there is a great deal in this alteration between coal and electricity. I wonder whether the Central Electricity Board realised, when they were making their estimates, that there would not be as much solid fuel available as they thought, and that more people would, therefore, want to switch on their electricity. Further, we were told that the manufacture of electrical appliances was increasing, that industry was getting under way. Surely, it was obvious that the estimate of 587,000 tons a week was wrong. What the right figure

was only the experts can say, but somebody should have challenged them at the beginning of December, when the figure went over the estimate.
As regards the production of coal, the Minister of Fuel and Power said, on 10th February, that unless reforms for miners in the unattractive mining industry were conceded we should not get the production of coal which was essential. I agree, but what are those reforms? What is standing in the way? Why have not we had a proposal in the House for carrying out those reforms? There are only two parties to the coal problem, the Government and the miners. That is why the Liberal Party supported the nationalisation of the mines, because we wanted to see these radical reforms introduced. What are the radical reforms which are required to make the mining industry more attractive? What steps are being taken to introduce them now?

Mr. Murray: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Coal Board are now negotiating with the miners about these various reforms? It cannot all be done in a day.

Mr. Byers: I quite agree, but the reforms have been under discussion for many months. I want to know who is holding them up. Is it the Coal Board? If so, why will they not agree? This House ought to be told. I make a serious demand of the Government that they should hasten on with these reforms, because I believe that the whole country will be behind them. The production of coal is so vital that we cannot afford to waste months. Are we expected to get these reforms finally agreed this time next year? If so, we shall have wasted a whole year's production.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Woodburn): If the hon. Gentleman will look at HANSARD of 26th June he will find that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power announced these reforms in the House.

Mr. Byers: I think we must be at cross purposes. These were reforms which the Minister of Fuel and Power was talking about on 10th February. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to mean that discussions have been going on from June to February?

Mr. Woodburn: The National Coal Board only took over the mines on 1st January.

Mr. Byers: In that case, what is the point of quoting to me what the Minister of Fuel and Power said on 26th June? That is an attitude of mind which is preventing these reforms coming into being. That is one of the things which makes me so worried. I cannot feel that there is any sense of urgency on the Government benches. What we require is more coal now, and a radical approach to this matter; not this conservative approach of letting things drift on. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I find a great deal of conservatism on the benches opposite—a willingness to sit down and say, "This has always gone on in this slow way, and, therefore, there is not need to change it."
On the question of absenteeism in the mines, voluntary absenteeism is about 9 per cent. and to blame the miner for that is to obscure the issue completely. The Government have the responsibility of getting at the root of that problem. What is it that causes voluntary absenteeism? It is no use saying that the miners do not want to work, that it is an unattractive industry. Has there been a proper investigation into the cause of voluntary Absenteeism, and, if so, what is recommended to prevent it? If recommendations have been made, what has been done to put them into effect? Nine per cent. of the productive forces of the coalmining industry is, indeed, a great amount in terms of tonnage per year, and I think that the country would be behind the Government in recommending methods of overcoming this. It may be a question of overhauling P.A.Y.E., a question of differential taxation or of increased wages for the miners—I do not know. I am quite convinced, however, that the country would be behind the Government in pursuing anything that would solve the problem of absenteeism in the mines.

Mr. Walkden: rose—

Mr. Byers: I must finish. If it is a question of differential taxation—if it is any of these questions—can these things be solved now? Because if we wait, month after month, we shall lose a considerable amount of coal. I want to end on this note: We realise the difficulties of the short and long-term period, but the

onus is upon the Government to take every step necessary to increase production of coal. The estimate of 200 million tons is fantastically small. I am convinced that the country is behind the Government in their efforts to make the ruining industry attractive. Some people say that this is appeasement of the miners, but I say that that is an unworthy suggestion—it is absolute nonsense. The people who say that should go down -he mines themselves.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Would the hon. Member go down?

Mr. Byers: Yes, I would; but I have been for six years fighting for my country, and I have had no time for that. That again is an unworthy interjection. The point I am trying to make is that the Government will have the support of the country in making the coalmining industry more attractive in order to increase production.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George) has said that the estimate of 200 million tons is optimistic. It is rather difficult to understand, in those circumstances, how he comes to the conclusion that it is possible to increase the solid domestic ration of fuel.

Major Lloyd-George: The only way we can do it is by importation, much as I deplore it.

Mr. J. Silverman: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman basing his expectation of an increase simply on the problematical question of how much solid fuel can be imported from outside? If so, that is a most tenuous basis on which to make such a suggestion. I think that it is undesirable to raise the hopes and expectations of ordinary people by suggesting that it is possible to do something which is not possible at the present time. I am glad that in the plan which was published during the month of January the word "realistic" was used. I thought that in tackling this problem the Government intended to be realistic and to base their estimates on concrete expectations, and not merely on hopes that might never be realised. I represent one of the largest industrial constituencies in this country—perhaps the largest. There are many large


units in the Division of Erdington, and I have spoken to both employers and workers on these problems. They have put to me certain questions which I am now putting to the Minister, and I hope that whoever replies will deal with these matters.
In the first place, they want to know what is the basis for the allocation under this plan. I do not think it is sufficient for these matters to be decided in the obscurity of some regional office, and then imposed on people, without letting them know the whys and wherefores. I think that the Ministry will be faced with far fewer problems, and will create far fewer difficulties for themselves, if they inform the manufacturer of the basis of his allocation in the first place; at the present time he does not know what it is. What particular priority is given, for instance, to the question of export? What priority is given to the question of firms who run their own generating plants? What priority is given to coal-cutting machinery? Let me give the example of one firm in my constituency. They manufacture component parts of coal-cutting machinery. The people who assemble coal-cutting machines are clamouring for those parts, and cannot make machines because this firm, on account of the fuel shortage, is working on short time. The position is that, because of the fuel shortage, coal-cutting machinery is held up. In consequence, we get a vicious circle and a hold up of production. Would it be possible to give priority to firms engaged on this work, who find it possible to do a full five-day week, and get the maximum production of these machines to produce the coal which is needed.
Another problem, which I put to the Minister, is this: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that the scheme would be flexible, that we do not want a rigid scheme. I agree that we do not want a rigid scheme. But I wonder just how much flexibility there will be. Will it mean further clamour by firms at the doors of the regional office, or that firms will go to the Ministry in order to increase their allocation, simply on the basis of pressure—call it persuasion if you like? In those circumstances, I am afraid that the whole situation will be most obscure and difficult. Firms in my constituency have expressed doubt about what they are to do. They

say, "Do you think that if we press the Minister, we shall get more, when this scheme is in operation?" Every firm has its own difficulties, and each will be conscious of its own problems. Unless they know the whys and wherefores of the plan, I am afraid that we shall have a continuation of pressure and persuasion by almost every firm in the country, which will leave the whole situation in obscurity and difficulty.
Will the flexibility merely be upward; does it mean that there is going to be an increase in the event of an emergency or of unforeseen difficulties, or is it to be a downward flexibility? Firms want to know that the amounts allocated to them are really assured, and that they can work upon that basis. I also want to know on what basis increased allocations are going to be made. Are they to be made on the basis of a sudden emergency or upon matters of unforeseen circumstances in the first instance, unprovided for in the plan.
One problem was put to me in this fashion by a firm in my constituency. This firm said to me, "We have a certain allocation. We are trying as a firm to assist the Government to economise to the uttermost in fuel. We have already endeavoured to do so. Can we be assured that economy is not in the long run an instrument which will be used against us?" Is there going to be any reduction in a firm's allocation simply because it has amassed certain stocks in consequence of its conservation of coal allocation, or are we going to say to such a firm, "Carry on. This is what you are going to get; you will continue to get it and if you secure stocks by economising, you will get the benefit of that." Is this scheme based upon what is called the maximum consumption? If it is, I think it is an unreasonable method on which to estimate, because that means that if a firm at the time when the maximum period of consumption was calculated, was not conserving its resources, it is going to get the full benefit, whereas the firm which was economising is not going to get it. All these are problems with which we are faced. I hope that it will be possible to give firms in my constituency and other firms in the country satisfactory answers.
There is one further point to which I would refer. That is the question of solid fuel supplies against the use of electrical appliances. It is suggested that one is


alternative to the other. Frankly, I do not think so, judging from my experience. I think the two things are complementary at the present time. The public are using additional supplies, and will continue to do so, even if it were possible to increase the supply of fuel. People today want more light and more heat than they obtained before the war. People like to be warmer if they can get warmer, and whatever the position may be for solid fuel supplies, the demand for electricity is going to be immensely greater. That, of course, means that the demand for electrical appliances will continue to increase, and I do not see how in fairness it could be stopped without discriminating against certain people. I do not think it would be wise to base any expectations on the assumption that the increased demand for electricity is merely an alternative supply of fuel for heating and lighting purposes.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has said—and, of course, it has been mentioned in this House before—that one of the main reasons for the lack of preparation for the fuel crisis which has emerged as a result of the weather is the estimate given by the Electricity Commissioners and the Electricity Board. I think that this House is entitled to know the basis upon which that estimate was made. It is going to be a very serious matter if such utter miscalculations in the situation are made again. While I do not doubt that the President of the Board and the Minister of Fuel and Power are entitled to rely upon the estimates given to them by proper authorities, if the estimate is not only given wrongly but is such a serious miscalculation as is obvious in this case, then it ought to be investigated and the plain facts put before this House. Are the people who made this miscalculation competent to advise the Minister on important issues? That is a matter about which this House is entitled to know. I have placed before the Minister issues of complexity which have effect upon my constituency, and I hope he will be able to satisfy not only firms in my constituency, but industrial undertakings throughout the country.

6.37 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I do not propose to discuss now the crisis measures or the action that is being taken

with a view to getting a resumption of industry as soon as possible. Granting the situation of three weeks ago, I have little serious criticism to make as to what the Government has since done; and even if I had I should hesitate to make it in public, because like other Members of this House on all sides, I am extremely anxious not to say one word which might in any way prevent the full application of the measures which are now being taken. The question to which I want to direct special attention is that of what the President of the Board of Trade calls the middle term, that is the action that is required in the next few weeks and months, in order to prevent a re-occurence next winter of what we have had this winter. That will involve, however, glancing to some extent at the long term problem and glacing back to actions and developments that preceded this great breakdown a few weeks ago.
I shall walk perhaps a little less delicately than my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) upon ground on which Ministers always seem to fear to tread. I want to mention what seems to me to be the most important and overwhelming factor of the middle term, and that is absenteeism, or rather voluntary absenteeism, as distinct from absence due to sickness. My right hon. Friend gave a figure to cover the whole of that absenteeism, and he suggested a possible improvement by a certain percentage; but it is unfair I suggest to apply that to the absenteeism which is caused by illness. If, however, one eliminates sickness altogether, the voluntary absenteeism of last year was still over 10 per cent.

Mr. James Glanville: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that this Debate has now been widened to include production? We understood that we were to be confined today to the question of distribution.

Sir A. Salter: I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, wish to answer that question or not, but I understood that this Debate covered production as well.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule out of Order anything on the Adjournment, unless it relates to legislation. I have no doubt that the Debate will run more or less on the lines on which we started.

Sir A. Salter: I think that quite apart from the formal point of Order it is the case that I am going no further than continuing on a subject already discussed by both sides of the House and by both Front Benches. I was saying that the percentage of voluntary absenteeism last year was over roe per cent.—I think about 10.8 per cent. That is equivalent to something like 20 million tons of coal. But even the increase in voluntary absenteeism between last year and about two years before—when I believe it was just over six per cent.—is equivalent to over seven million tons, which is considerably more than the total quantity that would have been required to avert altogether this recent breakdown if everything had been as was.
Can nothing be done to reduce this voluntary absenteeism? I think that many of us were disturbed tonight to hear the President of the Board of Trade indicating that in the near future there is the prospect of a five-day week, although he did not seem to be quite certain about the fact or the date. That of course is an extremely serious thing. It may make the statistical figure of our voluntary absenteeism look better than last year because its effect will be to legitimatise, to perpetuate and, to some extent, to disguise the extent of voluntary absenteeism. It will also increase the real absenteeism because it will bring into a shorter week people who are not at present voluntarily abstaining from work. I realise the delicacy of this question but if the nation and the miners had realised, or if they can now realise the full gravity of the position as it is set out in the White Paper, and as it has been dramatically brought home to every family in the last few weeks, would it not be possible for this change to have been postponed?
I will say no more on that subject at the moment but will come now to what can be done in the future. It is not, I am afraid, possible to discuss that without looking in the past. For it is beyond question, as has been demonstrated both in this House and in the country, that apart from the long-term decline of coal and the effect of the increase in voluntary absenteeism, there has been administrative incompetence. If the Government had taken certain administrative measures which they should have taken, and if they had not been guilty of administra-

tive miscalculations, the complete breakdown—not shortage—of the last few weeks could have been averted. When thinking of the future do not let us mislead ourselves by talking about the weather. It is of course true that the particular moment at which this breakdown took place was determined by exceptionally bad weather. It is also true that it has been prolonged by bad weather in the last few weeks. But at the moment when the breakdown took place there had only been about two days of exceptional blizzard, and about two weeks of the kind of severe weather which usually occurs at some time in the winter, following upon two months of rather less severe weather than the average.
It is perfectly clear that with the stocks as they were at the beginning of November and with everything else as it was and has been there must have been a breakdown before the end of this winter even if the weather had been of exactly average severity from beginning to end. It is also clear that the Government could have done, and should in future do many things that they did not. In the first place there is the plain, ordinary, commonsense co-ordination of action between one Department and another. This has been mentioned but I do not think it has been brought home sufficiently. Take the question of electric heaters.
Why should the President of the Board of Trade have made his one important exception to his austerity for the domestic consumer by flooding the market with electric heating appliances? Why, almost simultaneously, should the Chancellor of the Exchequer have chosen those appliances for a remission of Purchase Tax? Is it not clear that there was no proper contact between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Fuel and. Power representing, as he should have done, to the Board of Trade that this was just the one commodity which should not be encouraged? Reference has been made to the mistaken estimates of the Central Electricity Board. Is it not also true that there was no adequate warning by the Minister that the new products which were flooding the market were bound to increase the consumption of electric power, particularly in homes which were deprived of the amount of coal they were accustomed to in the past? Were the, Central Electricity Board informed of this


big adverse factor when they came to make their estimates of future requirements? It is perfectly clear that there was a very gross failure, not in the sphere of lofty and ambitious planning but in ordinary day to day co-ordination between a few departments of the Government.
There is one other thing that could have been done, and that I hope will be done in the future. The public, as a whole, including the miners, should have regular, sober, objective and illuminating statements as to the facts of the coal situation. We have had from the President of the Board of Trade today an admirable example of lucid and illuminating statistics accompanied by an explanation which brought out their real significance and did not distort them. If we could have regular official statements that had those characteristics and were not cancelled by other conflicting statements I think the general background for influence, either on the miners or the consuming public, would be immensely improved. I say that, if I may, not only to Government supporters and the Government but also to their critics, because what happens—in this as in other spheres—is this, There may, perhaps, be some momentary fall in production. This is then seized upon, exaggerated and proclaimed, whereupon the Government will retort with an equally unfair, selective choice of facts covering a particular week or short period. The first statement by the critics does not matter so much except that it provokes the Government. But when the Government retort with a selective statement of that kind it has the effect of obscuring the significance of a grave warning that may have been made at other times. That is, I think, to some extent the explanation of what are otherwise indefensible contradictions in statements that have been quoted in this House as coining from the Minister of Fuel and Power. I hope that in future the statements will be of such a kind as to keep the public really informed of the coal situation.
Is it not possible—quite apart from the sphere of taxation or of P.A.Y.E., which will no doubt be discussed on another occasion—to do something to increase incentives for the miners by providing them and their wives with just the things they really want to buy but cannot buy at

present? They would then have a real incentive not to use their increased earnings in the form of extra pleasure, but in the form of getting what they want. Incidentally, may I point out that the one thing they do not want to buy is electrical heating apparatus?

Miss Jennie Lee: Nonsense.

Mr. Walkden: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that as regards the mining area of Doncaster, I can say that we are urgently desirous that we should have all these amenities added to our homes without delay?

Sir A. Salter: Perhaps I may amend my statement by saying that they are less in need of electric heating apparatus than other sections of the community—and I am sure that here at least the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) will agree with me—because they have an altogether superior allocation of coal to any other section of the community.
Next, I hope that the Minister will get on more quickly with the question of supplementing manpower by importation of foreign labour. The Government have admitted the principle, and they have made arrangements for some foreign labour. I think however that the whole House realises that the Government have been very slow. I trust that in the atmosphere of this crisis they will be able to get on further with this matter. I hope that they will show less timidity than they did in shirking the question of voluntary absenteeism in the White Paper. In a survey of the whole economic position of over 30 pages, coal is the recurrent refrain from the first page to the last. A whole section is devoted to the coal situation. Yet there is not so much as a single reference to absenteeism. It is most striking that there should be such excessive timidity. I hope the same timidity will not prevent the Government from now going ahead, as the situation requires, with the importation of suitable foreign labour.
There is one last thing to which I would refer. I hope that while the Government are doing every possible thing to avoid a breakdown, they will at least have a plan in reserve, a crisis plan, in case there should be a breakdown. Some of the things which have happened in this crisis can only be explained by the fact that the Government had to take action for which they had prepared no plan at all. One


of my hon. Friends has referred to the perfectly fantastic decision as to the suspension of different classes of publications. Printing was permitted to a weekly newspaper with a circulation of 7 million, while there was suppression of small weekly journals of opinion, with circulations somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000. It seems incredible that a single weekly newspaper should have been permitted to use 100 times—putting it very moderately—the consumption of power which would have been required for the printing of all the weekly organs of opinion put together. The only explanation is that the Government had not prepared beforehand. They therefore turned to the producers associations. It happens that there are two organisations, one for the newspapers and one for the weekly periodicals. The Government took their advice as final and did not, as I think a Government should, consider the interests of the consuming public. I give that illustration of the necessity for preparing a plan for a crisis while the Government are, at the same time, doing everything possible to avoid the recurrence of a crisis.
So far I have been speaking entirely on what I call the "middle term" problem. I would now like to make reference to the long-term problem. It will be most disastrous for this country if not only for this year but in perpetuity, we cease to be an exporter of coal. Not only have our coal exports in the past been one of the main factors in our balance of payments, but the present abandonment of them affects the whole of our economy. If we look from one country to another in Western Europe now, we see as the main source of their troubles shortages of coal which are due, above all, to absence of imports from this country and to the inadequate production of coal in the Ruhr in the British zone. The effects upon this country are tremendous. If we cannot get timber now, it is because Sweden is burning timber in the absence of our coal. If we now pay Germany reparations to the order of between £80 million and £100 million a year, the figure is as high as it is because the resumption of German industry has been retarded by a shortage which in turn is partly due to the export of Ruhr coal to countries which can no longer import from us. If we cannot get food, or the exchange with which to buy

it from the Argentine, it is because we are not sending our coal there. It will be disastrous if our production of coal becomes only sufficient for the resumption of industry. I therefore urge the Government in their long-term policy to aim at a production which will not only meet home consumption but permit the resumption of exports.

6.58 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) digressed for a moment to express his disapproval of the Government's stopping the opinion-making weeklies. On that issue I find myself in the warmest approval of his remarks. But I hope he will forgive me if I say that, while we listened to him with respect on many subjects in which we feel he has great experience and great erudition, when he discusses the problem of how we are to maximise our coal production, increase output and provide incentives in the mines, there arc many other Members in this House with much greater knowledge of the inwardness of that situation.
From the opposite side of the House we have been told that we ought to have more Socialism, more plans, more controls and more rationing. My right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade apparently has been far too gay a fellow in giving us all kinds of luxuries that we ought not to have. Listening, as did, for some more constructive suggestions, I heard nothing in the way of solid contributions to the problem of maximising our output. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George) said something which was extremely seductive from the point of view of the housewife. He said we ought to have more solid fuel to burn. That was very pleasing and charming of him, but I wonder whether it was not a little bit irresponsible. He talked about stocks, and knows about stocks as he did a good deal of cupboard raiding in his time. But we are on our best behaviour today. We are not going to go back to the past.
On the issue of household coal let us face this fact. We have not only housewives in Britain using gas and electricity because solid fuel is not available, but the truth of the situation is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of householders in this country who can afford to


have a little electric fire in the bedroom which they could not have before. There was a certain amount of dissent from these benches when the senior Burgess for Oxford University said that in the mining districts, for instance, we ought not to bother about electric heating equipment. It is not universally true that miners have an extra supply of coal. Some have and some have not. But even so, if one is getting up in the grey hours of the morning in a bedroom which is like a refrigerator—a miner is like anyone else—it is pleasant, he feels, to have a little warmth.

Sir A. Salter: The hon. Lady will recognise that I amended my statement to say that inasmuch as the miners do get a much bigger allocation of coal than the rest of the community, they at least need electric heaters less.

Miss Lee: They do not usually have that coal burning in the bedrooms. They certainly do not have it burning at the most vulnerable moments—when one is making up one's mind to get up and go down the pits, or perhaps when one is getting into cold clothes. I know that the right hon. Gentleman in making that suggestion had no desire to be offensive to any mining household, but the inwardness of mining communities is that if there is gas or an electric heater in the house and if there is any money at the end of the week to afford it, the miners like a little bit of extra comfort the same as the rest of us.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I hope the hon. Lady will address her remarks to the President of the Board of Trade, because we thoroughly agree.

Miss Lee: I am quite willing to address my right hon. and learned Friend but when the right hon. Gentleman opposite says, "We thoroughly agree" I immediately become confused. I have already heard in this Debate a plea that fewer electrical heaters should be made and used. The House is really in two minds over this issue. What is the substance of the houewives situation? It is that if one takes the country as a whole there is more employment and a steadier level of wages coming in at the end of the week, and therefore there is bound to be more solid fuel or gas or electricity consumed in the homes. Therefore if we decide to make

any changes in the domestic allocation, do not let us delude ourselves into the belief that we can switch from one form of heating to another and thereby achieve any serious saving. It is most difficult to run a household these days with perhaps only three cwt. of coal a month. What does everyone in this House do if we have a little electric fire or gas fire. We obey the law meticulously from 9 to 12, and from 2 to 4 o'clock and then put on a little extra heat when we feel we can do so without being anti-social—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Why not?

Miss Lee: The more optimistic thing to do, therefore, is to see if there is any way by which we can step up coal production so that we can meet the new levels of comfort which all our homes want and at the same time keep our industries fully fuelled. No one will say that we can do that at once. All of us who have been trying to work out the crossword puzzle of how we can spread 200,000,000 tons of coal—assuming we get that this year—over domestic, industrial and possible export needs, know that it cannot be done. Indeed, if we had to conduct our analysis this afternoon strictly on an arithmetical basis, we would say that this country was beaten. It simply cannot be done because, to look at the more optimistic side of our problem, our standards are rising. We are not dealing with under-employment, but a situation in which we want to extend our industries means that the demands from every side are growing so fast that, if we confine our-self simply to arithmetic, we are beaten.
What is there in the situation apart from the arithmetical point of view? We know that our pits will be re-equipped with machinery. No one will say that that can be done in the next month or two. We will be lucky if in our lifetime we can get complete re-equipment, and certainly we will have to be extremely moderate in the estimates we make as to what can be added by new equipment in the pits in the next year. Every practical miner in the House will agree. It is sometimes a little amusing—not so much in this House, where statements can be checked, but on public platforms—to hear that all we have to do is to bring in the Poles and the displaced persons and provide an extra 100,000 or 200,000 miners in order to solve our problems. But one cannot possibly take new labour into the


pits, and turn it into trained coal-getters in a short space of time.
I do not apologise for talking on mining subjects. The background of my early life was a miner's home. Later, I married a miner and I have lived with this problem and I do not speak with only surface knowledge of it. Anyone who knows how miners work and what their outlook is will say that the key point in the next month, and in the coming year, is not the new machinery or the new labour—they are both longer-term problems—but the men who are already in the pits. I see one hon. Member opposite shaking his head. He is an hon. Member whom I have always respected when he talks on mining subjects because he knows his stuff. He knows the machinery. But I wonder if he knows the miners.
There are two problems, the technical problem of the means of getting coal and the psychological problem of the outlook of the miner and of his wife and family. I confess that I get a certain sombre satisfaction out of the new status and importance of the miner. I have done a little sum, which I think is accurate, of the amount of coal lost to this country in the between-war years by industrial disputes when the men were struggling just for bare subsistence wages. We lost 290,000,000 tons of coal in those between-war years owing to industrial disputes when the men were struggling for a living wage. There is no serious problem of industrial disputes now. There is no problem for the miner of unemployment.
That brings me to one issue raised by the senior Burgess for Oxford University —absenteeism. If there is a miner who can give maximum production at the coal face six days a week all the year round, I have not met him. It cannot be done, it is physically impossible. Before the war there was not this problem because men laid off for months at a time either through disputes or idle time. It was common knowledge in the coalfields that it was easier to get a collier to go on strike in the summer than in winter because it gave him a chance to see the sunlight and to gather his strength. When, however, we talk about absenteeism today, it is in connection with a body of men who are growing older. We are beginning to attract the younger men, but we have not got enough of them yet. So you are dealing with a body of men, many of them with

sorrowful memories, many of them who have every reason to be embittered, saying, "Society took its time to attend to me, perhaps I will take a little time to attend to society." Miners are human and have long memories.
If you break down the figure of absenteeism in the coal pits today into men who are off because they are injured, men who are off because they are seriously sick, and men who are off because of age and circumstances, the problem of absenteeism is not quite as serious as some hon. Members opposite make it out to be. It is serious, but too much attention is focussed on this point. So far as there is a problem of absenteeism, of an able-bodied fellow who could quite well be at work but who, for his own reasons, is human enough to think he will take a day off, how can we deal with it? We certainly cannot deal with it by lecturing him, and certainly not by lecturing the fellow who goes out to work every day. Like the kirk situation, it is the people who turn up that the minister can get at and lecture. But how are you to deal with the very small percentage of, if not anti-social, at least indifferent citizens?

Sir A. Salter: May I remind the hon. Lady that I first eliminated altogether the absenteeism due to sickness in my figure of 10 per cent.? I certainly did not suggest it could be dealt with by lecturing, but that the President of the Board of Trade, even if it appeared to interfere with equal distribution, might give some incentive by making available to the miner and the miner's wife those things they want to buy.

Miss Lee: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figure. I cannot give him an accurate figure because the practical miners break up those figures in different ways. All we can agree on is that there is a small percentage. How can we deal with it? Here is one suggestion which is worth considering. A mining community is a very close fellowship. There is a mood about it, and, if the mood of the community is right, if the mood of his wife, his sweetheart, his mother at home is right, that is one very strong source of pressure on the small anti-social element to bring them into line.
May I ask the indulgence of this House while I express myself as moderately as I can on a subject on which I feel ex-


tremely immoderately—the quite unforgivable psychological 'handling of the miners of the Midlands in the recent period of shortage? If you want cynicism, if you want to increase absenteeism, then you have a perfect example of how to do it in the way the West Midlands Regional Coal Board have handled the miners of the Midlands. I know what is happening in the homes and in the workmen's clubs. There is wisecracking, there is cynicism, there is the turning up of the past that we were all prepared to bury. Why? Because, when the winter weather exacerbated the other shortages there was a movement which I can only describe as "ground swell" among the men. You have to be there to know what it is. It is a comradeship, a fellowship, a banding together. There were the beginnings of a mass movement amongst the leaders of the men, the people who are the sensitive instruments who spread their mood to the rest of the men. They said, "Let us man the pits." It was a wonderful thing for any Coal Board. The local miners, the local transport workers, and other members of the public came along and said, "We will work seven days a week." They are practical miners, they know you cannot do it for more than one or two weeks, but they were bringing a wonderful and patriotic mood to an emergency situation.
What was the response? Was the response from the Coal Board, from men who are supposed to be wiser than the old coalowners in psychological matters, as well as having opened up to them the technical possibilities—greater than ever before; was the response from those to whom we have given authority: "This is wonderful. We appreciate your mood. Stand by and let us get down to the technical problems"? That was all the men asked. No miner wanted to work on Sunday unless the Sunday work was to be a plus factor, and there would be a contribution from his special effort to helping the nation at this moment through a period of crisis. Instead, to the management of every colliery in the Midlands there went this circular from the regional production office:
I have decided, with the approval of the board, not to open the pits for coal-raising on Sunday next. Nevertheless, any collier who has worked a full shift and is desirous of working a week-end shift in addi-

tion should apply to the manager of his pit, and he will be found work.
Let me make my meaning quite clear. There are two issues here. There are a technical issue and a psychological issue. There are pits where Sunday is required for maintenance. I have already said that miners cannot work more than six shifts a week, but, just as at Dunkirk in the war, there was a time this winter when a lot of the old sores and wounds were healing, and when men who had suffered so much and been so greatly humiliated were ready to do a heroic job. They were ready to man the pits —that meant ready to dig the coal, to wind coal, to have emergency transport arrangements so that they could get that coal to Birmingham, to Wolverhampton, to the surrounding cities where the industries were waiting on it. Do you say "Romantic‡" "Impossible‡"? Perhaps, but was not that mood something precious. Was not that mood something which gave the Regional Coal Board an opportunity to lead the men? Instead of that there was one insulting and discouraging statement issued after the other.
I know the cross-section of the local men concerned. Many are my friends of the Labour movement locally. There is the chairman of my divisional Labour party, for instance, who has what you may call a cautious Labour view—for instance, he disapproved of my criticism of the Foreign Secretary over the foreign affairs Debate. They are men of varying points of view, and temperament. That was the leadership that came forward and formed the Vigilance Council, and that was the leadership that was kicked in the teeth. I say to this House that your most precious asset in the coal pits are the men. If you want, I believe you can get not 200 million tons but more than that in 1947. We argue amongst ourselves on these benches about that—[Laughter.]—a legitimate argument, but the optimistic, not the romantic, not the impossible thing, is that we can get more than that 200 million tons provided that our men have the issues explained to them and are wisely and generously led.
The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) complained that sometimes the public, and the House, were not fully informed of what was going on. It is bad enough when we feel that we are left outside the door, but how


would hon. Members like to be in the position of the miner? He is the man in the industry who has to get up in a cold bedroom without even the one kilowatt fire, to which reference has been made. He was ready to bring his warm comradeship and enthusiasm to the emergency job. He is rudely told, in effect, to mind his own business. I hold a heartbreaking document in my hand, the report of ten sad days of effort by men who wanted to work in the pits, and the sort of answers they got. Here is an example—"Shin-well" —I am using the gracious language used by officials.
Shinwell has been unduly influenced by the activities of a body of agitators who are gaining cheap notoriety by hawking cures for ills they are unable to diagnose.
That is the kind of thing which is said to our people. All the time there has been talk of encouraging absenteeism and of the men being mainly concerned with double time on Sundays. I assure the House that nothing could have been a greater travesty of the truth. I hope that my remarks will not be misquoted. I am not saying that men can go on working for seven days a week, but that was a wonderful mood and they should have been brought into close and cordial cooperation. Instead, they were treated as outsiders and scroungers. If there is behaviour like that we shall not get the coal.
The right hon. Member for Oxford University talked about incentives. May I give a word of warning about incentives? I sometimes feel rather angry on behalf of our people, the colliery people, when incentives are talked about rather in the spirit of carrots being dangled in front of donkeys. "Give the work beast more to wear, and more to eat," is the tone of the suggestion. Of course we want more food for the miners. If a man has to do a hard day's work he needs red meat every day of the week. Of course we want more meat for the miners, and more goods in the shops but this House will be making a great mistake if it thinks that men can be rallied into the coalfields to use their maximum energy and bring in their sons and new blood unless hon. Members in talking about incentives remember the spirit of these men, the poetry, the patriotism, the soul and generosity which is in them. The public has a right to know what is going on in the industry but above all these men have the right to

know. Our pit committees must become more real than they are at present. I have been talking about things which are intangible, but it is the intangibles which are the plus factor which can help most in the immediate situation. If we handle these psychological problems properly and do our utmost on the technical side, if we treat miners as men and intelligent citizens and responsible people in their industry I have every confidence that our people will in the future as in the past carry this country on their shoulders through all its difficulties.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I am sure that hon. Members on this side, and on the other side of the House, will hope that the really stirring call to leadership and imagination made by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) will be noted in the right quarters, and that the Minister of Fuel and Power—I am not in a position to refer to him so briefly as "Shinwell"—will give some answer to the very grave charge of lack of imagination and failure to seize on the mood so wonderfully described, which I am certain has caused a set back in the ripple of enthusiasm we all desire to encourage. I join with those who congratulated the President of the Board of Trade—it is unusual for me to do so—on the lucid way in which he made an exposé of the case, and on the obvious trouble he had taken to get right inside the problem, and not just to read out a series of statistics. I would also like to join in the regret he expressed, when making that important speech, that the benches behind him were so ill-occupied.

Sir S. Cripps: I really must correct the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher). I did not even look at the benches behind me. I was looking at the benches opposite.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman has eyes in the back of his head, but he must certainly have referred to the benches behind, possibly inadvertently, as they were much less occupied than those on this side.
Planning, when it consists of nationalisation and the gradual assumption of political power by legislation, is a very excellent occupation of the party, and it is nice to come to the House to find it being done. But, when Socialist planning comes


head on with hard realities, such as the present crisis, and when there has to be a confession of lack of foresight and planning, then the listening to it is not so palatable. I represent a Lancashire industrial constituency but do not pretend to be anything but a layman in the matter of coal. I have infinitely less knowledge than the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock. Nevertheless, I think it is in the tradition of this House that it is in order for hon. Members whose constituencies are greatly affected on the industrial side, to take part in such a Debate. One thing has struck me in trying to understand the situation, and that comes out of the statistics presented in the Economic Survey for 1947. In trying to work out what these figures really mean, there is one great question mark. It was referred to by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) and is whether the output of coal as expressed really gives the true picture. Coal in the White Paper is expressed in terms of output per man year. Surely, the correct way to express it, in order to see whether we are doing better, or worse, than before, and whether, from the industrial and domestic point of view, we are in a more or less perilous position, is in thermal efficiency per man year. If we are today producing 200,000,000 tons of coal and before the war we produced 200,000,000 tons with 10 per cent. greater efficiency we are less well off by that 10 per cent. In making the balance sheet what the Government should put before us—the President of the Board of Trade has been most explicit in saying that he will keep us up to date—is the real comparison, the percentage of loss both on the domestic and industrial side without which figures cannot be of any real value. Until we have that real comparison it seems to me that we do not know where we are.
The history of statistics in this country recently has followed that of painting. We had from the Minister of Fuel and Power, impressionism and post-impressionism and from the President of the Board of Trade we had realism. I suppose we shall have from the nine advisers, surrealism, which will tell us exactly where we stand. An hon. Member opposite brought out an instance of the terrible ramifications of this crisis and showed how difficult it will be to overcome them. He mentioned coal-cutting

machinery and export. I will make a link between that and point out an instance of how far-reaching the effects are. In Malaya, there is a great tin producing industry—tin which is needed in this country, and which is needed to be converted into dollars, the use of which I need not over-emphasise to any hon. Member of this House. Most of the tin dredging in Malaya is carried out by means of coal. That coal has so far been opencast coal but the opencast coal in Malaya has nearly come to an end, and there is a need for machinery for mining. Will that machinery get a priority of any sort? That is the sort of problem which is arising through this crisis. If we do not get the tin we do not get the dollars, if we do not get the dollars we do not get the food, and we do not get other necessary machinery. We must regard this not only as a short term, but as a long term problem, as well.
A layman like myself, when he looks at this problem with some business experience, must say to himself, "There is here a great risk of a shortfall belying the hopes and wishes of everybody in this House and this country, a risk that we shall not achieve our target." What does a prudent man or business do in a situation of that sort? He or it takes out an insurance, and in taking out an insurance there is only one possible golden rule, which is to take out the best insurance, and possibly pay the highest price for it. The insurance may not be necessary, but no one would dispute that a premium that might appear to have been dear and wasted today looks, within a few weeks, when the disaster one has been troubled about arises, about the best thing one has ever done.
The President of the Board of Trade, who was in a mood in which I have not very often seen him—extremely receptive to the ideas of others—asked for practical suggestions. I would like to offer two to him, briefly. One is that he should examine the coal situation, not only in this country but in other countries which have recently passed through a coal crisis, if not the same, at any rate rather parallel to the one we are now considering. The greatest problem in France, after she was liberated, was the coal question. France has employed methods in increasing her production of coal which are worthy of study by the Government of this country at the present time. There


are other countries where the same problems have been tackled. I feel certain that the sincere way in which the President of the Board of Trade asked for these suggestions, will lead him to make a close examination of this sort.
The other problem, which has already been touched upon in general terms, is this: We may be forced, however unpalatable it is, to buy coal as an insurance. I would like to urge a study of this method. On the long-term view, I think that nearly everyone will agree that we shall be able to increase production of coal well beyond the 200,000,000 ton figure, possibly up to a figure of 250,000,000 tons. If the spirit which the Member for Cannock has described in impressive fashion, is intelligently handled and well maintained, there is no doubt that that spirit can achieve things which the statistician cannot possibly imagine. That cannot be done rapidly. Therefore, until the time when we shall have a surplus of coal with which to repay, I suggest the following method. I can imagine the Government's reluctance to use any of the dollar loan for this purpose. That loan is, more than anything else, an insurance against food crises and food difficulties. To have, at this junction, when we all know that it is being used up rapidly, to contemplate reducing by a large amount the dollar loan, is something which the Government must face with real and understandable reluctance.
Surely there is a way out of that. Lend-Lease during the war, based on good fellowship between the United States and this country and other countries, can well be repeated at this moment. I have no doubt that if the right appeal was made, we could say to a number of countries, not only America, but South Africa too, "Lend us, not against cash payment, 10 million, 20 million tons of coal"—whatever is decided upon to be our sheet anchor in great storm that now surrounds us—" for a number of years. We will repay that in coal." In that way there will not be a financial transaction, we shall not eat into our dollar loan.
In the case of America it would not be too difficult to do, because America has not the same number of bunkering stations that we have throughout the world. We could repay her by replenishing her bunkering stations. It would mean later

a sacrifice of trade which we should otherwise have, but it is definitely an insurance which we should take out. We have a favourable trade balance with Belgium. We might have to get some coal from there. It is a distasteful task for this country, which was once described as an island of coal surrounded by fish, to have to go out, and buy and borrow coal at this present juncture. But I believe that there will be great backing in this country for the Government if they come forward with a bold and constructive lead, and say, "We have to go out and make arrangements which will cost us a good deal of shipping, and sacrifices of trade later, but which will nevertheless tide us over the period immediately before us." It will give ease of mind to the Government and to everybody else in the necessary planning they have to do in re shaping industry and cutting industry according to our coal cloth. I would recommend this particular scheme of borrowing coal against repayment later on in coal as a constructive suggestion, which was called for from the Government Front Bench.
Finally, coming down from something of national importance to something of domestic importance, I would like to make one further suggestion. It was indicated to us today that we arc to have a period of rationing of domestic coal. That falls most hardly on the old people. There has been put into operation in this country an admirable scheme of giving free milk to children in schools, because in their youth milk is what they happen to need more than anything else. What old people need, possibly more than food, is a little bit of extra warmth. I believe that with the machinery which now exists, through the old age pensions scheme, and similar social security undertakings, it would not be too difficult, administratively, to say that old people beyond a certain age are to have a slight, if only a very slight, increase in their solid fuel ration. During the few days I spent in the North-West Area last week I saw the terrible effects of the present coal rationing and absence of coal on the old people. I believe that on every side of the House there will be sympathy with this idea. I believe that if the Government are really in a receptive mood to ideas, if they will really listen and have their ear to the ground, through every stratum of society, and if they give a good


and bold lead, they will get the backing of the whole country, and we shall emerge, if not unscathed, nevertheless sufficiently strong, with our great powers of recuperation, to get over this crisis honourably and well.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Baird: I have listened with great interest to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, especially when they spoke about the problem of absenteeism. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said that we on this side realised that the real reason for absenteeism is a psychological one. The chief reason for absenteeism is the treatment of the miners in the past by hon. Members opposite, and by their party. The cure is now beginning to have some effect. I believe that absenteeism is already diminishing. But when we think of the history of the mines, and I come from a mining district myself—the Sankey Report being shelved, and 1926, and what came afterwards can we blame the miners for their reluctance, in the past years, to do everything which hon. Members opposite asked them to do. As I said, the cure is beginning, but we must remember that we shall not cure absenteeism in a short period. It will be a long gradual cure, and we must not be impatient and expect results overnight. Furthermore, I would say this to hon. Members opposite, and there are many of them, who have spoken on this subject. Every speech that they make in which they criticise the miners, even mildly, for absenteeism does more harm than good.
I want to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). She has said that she is proud of the changed attitude of this House and the country to the miners. I agree. For the first time they have been treated not as parasites but as shock troops. I had the honour recently to attend the ceremony of the unfurling of the flag of the National Coal Board at a pit on the outskirts of my Division. That day the weather, and everything else, was against an inspiring ceremony. It was bitterly cold, for part of the time it was raining, and even the flag was blue instead of red. However, it was a very inspiring ceremony and it was obvious that in South Staffordshire at least, there was a new spirit abroad in the coalfields.
It is, therefore, very surprising and disappointing to me only a few weeks later, after having met these men and felt the new spirit amongst them, to receive a telegram from the miners in South Staffordshire which said:
"Urgent. Press Shinwell to permit working of pits in the Cannock Chase on Sunday. All men decided to work. Regional Board and production officer refuse but men are going to work all the same. On behalf of the Working Council…
This action of the West Regional Division of the Coal Board during the past fortnight has done much not to destroy but to weaken that new spirit which was so evident a few weeks earlier. There is, as I see the position today, a grave danger that having taken power from the private coal-owner, we will hand it over to bureaucrats who, while they may do it a little better, will not do the job which is expected of them. That is a danger which I am sure we recognise. As a result of this and other similar Debates, I hope that we shall get a much more benevolent approach by the National Coal Board to the whole situation than has been evident in the district to which I have referred.
I would say especially to the Minister of Fuel and Power that I believe that if there had been a closer contact between the West Regional Coal Board, the miners' leaders and the miners, this would not have happened. If we take a lesson from this in the future when we are discussing the relationship between the workers and the industry, we will grant to the workers a larger proportion of control of industry than they have at present. I want to see developed quickly a more effective liaison with more power handed to the miners' representatives.
I wish to make two other points. We are told that the rationing scheme will be flexible. If I might emphasise what was said by the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman), there is a danger that this scheme may become too flexible. Like myself, many hon. Members must have experienced pressure of all kinds during the last few weeks from firms in our various divisions. The idea is developing that if only a firm can get an hon. Member to bring pressure to bear on the Minister, they will get an increased allocation of fuel or power. That is a grave danger. If this scheme is to be flexible I hope that allocations will not go to the firms who shout most, or for whom hon.


Members shout most, but to the firms who have the greatest need for fuel.
At this time of crisis it is essential that industry should improvise in every way possible. Recently in my Division, which is highly industrial, with coalmining and heavy industries, I have found in talking to the workers that some firms are apt to sit back and to say, "Well, we are not going to do anything. Let's blame it on the Government." On the other hand, other firms I believe who are progressive, instead of taking that defeatist attitude have searched around, improvised and tried to find alternative means of power.
One example was brought to my notice of one of the largest firms in the Midlands which produces a commercial vehicle for which there is a great demand all over the world, including the dollar countries. In an effort to keep production flowing, immediately the crisis arose they searched the country for a generator to produce power to enable them to carry on. Let me here pay compliment to the way in which the application for generators was dealt with by the regional authority which sponsored their application which was immediately sent to London and again approved. They were told that the generator they required was ready to be picked up at Liverpool. They were even told the amount of insurance which they should take out to cover the generator. They were then instructed to collect the generator this morning. This afternoon, however, I had an urgent telephone message in which I was informed that the firm have now been told that they cannot have the generator because power is being supplied to the Midlands area and, therefore, there is no need for them to use an improvised method.
This is another example of the bureaucracy which we on this side of the House must insist shall be cleared out of Government Departments. It has been known for ten days that power would be supplied in the Midlands from Monday. If it is the policy that generators should be supplied only to areas which have no power, that should have been said long ago. The point is that this firm had agreed with the local electricity supply company that during peak periods they would use the generator in order to decrease their demand upon the local supply. In the near future the whole country will be on a rationed basis. I would like to know what is the method by

which these generators are allocated. There are hundreds of these generators lying unused in various parts of the country. There is no shortage of them today. What is the method by which allocation is taking place? Is it a fact that the Midlands will be penalized and not given any generators because they have been the first to benefit from the resumption in the supply of power? I hope the Minister will give an answer to this question.
The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) made an appeal that special consideration should be given to old people in any scheme of fuel rationing. I agree with his remarks but those who come from industrial areas, especially those with knowledge of the steel and coal areas, also know that these workers need much more fuel for washing and other purposes than do many other types of worker. I hope that any rationing scheme which is introduced will be sufficiently flexible for the miner, who needs a good scrubbing every night, and the steel worker, who has to change his underclothing every day, to receive an allocation which is adequate to ensure health and cleanliness.
I spent last weekend touring the mining villages and other industrial parts of my constituency. I would not like to conclude without paying a compliment to the spirit of the workers. When this crisis came upon us, many of us were a little fearful of possible reactions throughout the country. I was proud to see, in my own Division, that the spirit of the workers was a determination not to let this thing happen again. I believe that, while the immediate results of the crisis are to be deplored, the psychological results will, in the long run, be good. We cannot blame the workers because, since the war, they have been taking things a little easy. After six years of intense effort, it is only natural that they should sit back and take some rest. Now I believe that we have got the spirit of Dunkirk among the industrial workers of this country. We, on this side of the House, appreciate that spirit, and I have every confidence that, now that the workers know what is the job that has to be done, they will do it, and, among those workers, I place the miners second to none.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Jennings: I could not agree more than I do with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton


(Mr. Baird) in his condemnation of the inefficiency of bureaucracy as it has been demonstrated in his area with regard to Sunday work and by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who spoke so well before him. We, on these Benches, have been saying for some time, that the very thing of which those hon. Members have complained is one of the great evils in our present system. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, who was not present when the hon. Lady spoke, will receive full notes of what she said, and will also note what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton about the great failure of control under the present system.
We have heard how the Minister has put in his official to do a job, how he was acclaimed as a first-class man, and yet, before he is in his new job a few months, we find that he is stopping production at a time when the country wants every ton of coal that it can possibly get. We have heard the telegrams quoted by hon. Members opposite in regard to Sunday work, and I think that we on this side of the House can take some credit there, because we have been telling the Government the same thing for months. We have warned them that that was one of the great evils that was likely to arise. We read reports in the Press indicating the difficulties which the ordinary men and women have in the homes of this country in understanding the present situation. They read about men wanting to work, and not being allowed to do so. The ordinary men and women of this country cannot understand what all this is about, but they know that there is some muddle somewhere, and they think it is high time that muddling was stopped.
I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade today. He is a very eminent King's Counsel who came with his prepared brief, and put forward his case with facts and figures with the greatest possible clarity. Yet I must say that I was far from satisfied. There was a doubt in my mind, and it has been there for some time. There has been a grave lack of foresight resulting in the present situation, although it has to be admitted that it has been aggravated by weather conditions. But I think that we, in this House, must behave as honourable

people, and that, if the Government have made a mistake, they should get up and say so.

Mr. Jack Jones: rose—

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Member interrupts me every time I speak.

Mr. Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman clear up the position? He says that there has been a grave lack of foresight. Would he help hon. Members on this side of the House by saying exactly for how long?

Mr. Jennings: The President of the Board of Trade dealt with part of the period in his speech today. He gave the time when the Central Electricity Board gave figures and estimates, on which targets were based for the Minister to adopt. For that length of time, there has been a lack of foresight.

Mr. Jones: For how long?

Mr. Jennings: The Minister said at the end of last year. There has been a great lack of foresight, and I think we must admit it. The Minister himself said yesterday, before the Standing Committee considering the Electricity Bill, that the Tories must have their fun and games. Well, he has had his fun and games, and the people who are now suffering from his fun and games are my steel workers in Sheffield, and I am here to claim a just and fair deal for them. Sheffield is a very great industrial and steel-producing city. Coal is the major raw product for our industry, and this crisis has hit Sheffield very badly. Today, we are putting a great number—tens of thousands —of people out of employment

Mr. Shurmer: For the first time in the history of Sheffield?

Mr. Jennings: Well, I hope it is going to be the last time, and I am here to try to ensure that it will be. I feel that the Minister of Fuel and Power must get away from the jocular attitude which he adopts with regard to these important matters. This is a question which demands the greatest capacity of a statesman. No levity, nothing but the most serious manner, should be brought to bear upon this subject. I say frankly that people in every section of the country have been placed in very great difficulty in this crisis, because they have been brought up against something of which they had no warning. The Minister has


gone up and down the country making contradictory statements, and, when this crisis came upon the people, it gave them a great shock.
Regarding the measures which the President of the Board of Trade outlined today, I hope we shall be able to place more reliance upon them, and upon the policy to be adopted in future, than we have been able to place upon the allocations we have had up to the present. The President of the Board of Trade referred today to a figure of 700 million tons of coal, but he did not say anything about the effect of the five-day week. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us what effect the five-day week might have upon his plans? There seems to be some difference between the two Ministers concerned in this matter, and perhaps they could get together to see where they are at variance.
The time has now arrived when the spirit within this industry should be a happy and human one. True, we did not start off so very well, with the National Coal Board official who apparently has given the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock a very nasty shock and also seriously affected the feelings of the men in that area. We want to get away from all these old sores. I believe that, if there is one thing which is going to have a bad effect on industry in this country, it is the practice of harping back to the old idea that the boss was always to blame, and was bleeding the workers. Although I cannot dwell on it today, I should like to say, in passing, how glad I am that the spokesmen of the Government have had the courage to say that the production per man in this country is not enough, and that we have got to have more, in the interest of the great industries of the country. There are one or two bottlenecks in the mining industry. I have lived in a mining area for over 50 years, and not very far from my home I have seen thousands of tons of coal standing in the coalyard.

Mr. Jack Jones: Wasting.

Mr. Jennings: I suggest to the hon. Member that he might have a word with the Minister about his suggestion of wasting coal.

Mr. Jones: It is true.

Mr. Jennings: Perhaps he has seen the Minister and perhaps the Minister does not think much of it. At any rate, there is a bottleneck, and, for months past, before this bad weather set in, coal has been cut out of the mines and placed in the colliery yard, and because there have been no wagons to take it away there has been very bad distribution. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to hear that hon. Members agree with me. I have discussed this matter with people actually connected with the collieries and who are responsible for getting the coal, and they tell me that they are teeming the coal out into the colliery yards. They say that it is a crying shame that they have not the wagons to take it away.

Mr. Shinwell: indicated assent.

Mr. Jennings: I am glad to see that the Minister approves, because I remember 12 months ago standing in this same place and appealing to him to say what was the distribution. I was then appealing on behalf of the domestic users of coal in Sheffield, who were getting a raw deal in regard to their allocation. They were supposed to get a certain ration, but the ration was never there, and those unfortunate people, as has been said both from these benches and the benches opposite, were, in many cases, old people. I appeal to the Minister to tackle the position. With regard to the distribution of coal, I said then, and I still say it, that if we had tackled the wagon position we should have had thousands of tons of stock up and down the country; there would have been no shortage of wagons, and there would have been a better stocking position. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will refer to that matter.
For some obscure reason hon. Members of this House seem constrained to apologise whenever they mention the question of absenteeism. Absenteeism is a fact. To my mind, the Minister has never taken a very strong stand on the matter of absenteeism, but it is a fact which must be dealt with, and I do not propose to apologise for referring to it. If there had been no absenteeism, there would have been no coal crisis; the coal would have been produced. I want the Minister, when he replies, to give us the exact figure of the millions of tons of coal lost through avoidable absenteeism in the collieries, because that figure has, as far as I know, never been given. It is true that there


have been several estimates, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to give us the actual figure.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not a fact that absenteeism exists in every industry, in the Army, and, above all, in this House?

Mr. Jennings: I could not agree more than I do with the hon. Member, but we do not have to apologise to the engineers, to the Members of this House or to other members of industry when we mention the fact. When we mention absenteeism in the coal industry, we have almost to go cap in hand.

Mr. Murray: Is the hon. Member not aware that the only figures of absenteeism given in the country are those for the mining industry, and that no figures are given for other industries?

Mr. Jennings: It is a fact which has been stated in black and white on many occasions, and it has never been refuted that absenteeism in the mining industry is greater than in any other industry. If that is not so, I am surprised that the hon. Member has not made his voice heard before now in denying it. It is apparently true, because it has never been refuted in the national Press.

Mr. Murray: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member should be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your intervention. There is one important matter with which the Minister must have the courage to deal. The miner today is not producing the same output per shift as he was prior to 1939. The output per man has been dropping for years, and we have to face the fact that output must increase somehow or other, if we want these extra millions of tons of coal. I feel sure that, if we view the industry in a fair and humane way, and give the people concerned some of the benefits asked for by hon. Members opposite and, as the hon. Member for Cannock suggested, make the man's home life, and his wife and family happy and contented, we can achieve that extra output. Younger men are coming back to the industry, and it is quite possible to increase the tonnage per man. I believe that if

that matter, coupled with absenteeism, were properly tackled, it would go a long way towards solving the Minister's difficulties.
The figures mentioned today by the President of the Board of Trade took no account of the fact—which we must not forget—that the industry has had the credit in sales of stone, dirt and rubbish, which could not be sold before the war. The comparison between what was produced before the war and since has been based on such figures, instead of on the figures of good, sound, saleable coal. That is another point which we must watch. We must see that we are getting the right sort of coal. The chairman of the Electricity Company in London said yesterday that, last year, the bad coal had resulted in 750,000 tons more ash. That is a very serious matter, and one which wants looking into. The industry should supply the best coal it can procure.
Sheffield plays, and must play, a very important part in the economic recovery of this country. For that reason, it must have fair and proper allocations of coal in order to support and build up the great steel industry. I hope that the allocations to which the President of the Board of Trade referred today will be allotted to Sheffield. I should like to make a special appeal on behalf of the great industries there, and to say that, instead of being allowed to decline for want of the major raw material, coal should be supplied to them, so that the great benefits provided by the industries of Sheffield can be enjoyed by this country once again. Finally, I appeal on behalf of the domestic users who have had a raw deal. I was in Sheffield last weekend, and I heard many complaints which I could not possibly go into tonight. There is very bad distribution and many people, not only in Sheffield but, no doubt, in many parts of the country, are sitting at home tonight with no solid fuel. I do not think the Minister is unsympathetic. He must know the tragic position which exists in the country owing to the crisis. I beg the Government to consider the time, energy and labour which is being spent on the nationalisation of electricity, and I say to them, "Withdraw the Bill; get on with the job."

8.11 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis: This Debate has been characteristic, in that Members


on both sides of the House have attempted to put forward practical and constructive proposals to my right hon. Friend in order to make some contribution to the solution of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. It is, therefore, regrettable that the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) took it upon himself to make an attack upon the miners. That is very much regretted, particularly on this side of the House. As the President of the Board of Trade said this afternoon, we have not to correlate the present output with the output before 1939, but we have to examine it in the light of what it was in 1941–1945. In those circumstances, the whole country has been heartened by the news that during last week 4 million tons of coal were produced. It is unfair at this stage to cast aspersions on the efforts of the miners who are fully alive to their responsibilities, but it is obvious that during the coming year we shall not have enough coal to go all round and to satisfy the requirements of the domestic consumer and enable industry to run full speed ahead.
I want to put this point to my right hon. Friend. Whereas it will be a great burden for the domestic consumer to suffer the same cuts that he is experiencing at present, the economic situation of the country demands that every ounce of available coal shall go to the industrial producer so that we can maintain our exports and thus maintain our standard of living and our economic stability. We are told that it will be necessary to consider staggering hours of work. Last week end I was present at a meeting when my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade came to my constituency and addressed a meeting of cotton union delegates from all over Lancashire. The object was to impress upon the delegates of the cotton unions that it was vital in the interests of our national economy to work a double shift system. That is a 'proposition which, I am sure, will meet with a certain amount of opposition, and perhaps quite rightly so, from those people and particularly from women working in the cotton industry who may feel that their whole social life will be disturbed. The first question that occurs to them is how they will be able to put their children to bed and do their shopping. It seems to me that for the purpose of staggering the load, so far as electricity is concerned, precisely

the same problems arise. From my experience—perhaps limited compared with that of other hon. Members opposite—whereas there is a certain amount of opposition among the workers when a double shift or a treble shift scheme is put forward, when, however, it is put into operation it works perfectly satisfactorily and they like it very much. In my own organisation we have worked a double shift for seven years; we are now working three shifts, and the arrangement is very satisfactory. Industrialists will have to encourage their workers, in collaboration with the unions, to accept the principle that it is vital now to even out the load so as to ensure that we obtain the maximum production. I would ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the suggestion that those industries which are supplying others with vital raw materials should be kept running, as the output of other industries depends upon them.
The other point to which I would ask my right hon. Friend to give consideration is this. Whereas in industry today my right hon. Friend might issue a directive and say, "I want you to cut down five per cent. or 10 per cent.", in the same way as he did in December, he must remember that facilities are not always available for industrial concerns to know when they are consuming five per cent. more or five per cent. less. One cannot expect that each concern should keep an operative standing in front of the electrical recording meter to determine the quantity of electricity which is consumed at any one time. Firms who are buying electricity on the kilowatt maximum demand basis know full well that during two crucial months in the year—usually November and December—they are assessed for charge for the whole year's electricity on the peak load demand during that period. Therefore, they instal in their factories instruments which are known as instruments for determining the kilowatt maximum demand. Those instruments are very satisfactory, because should they go beyond a certain limit which would impose an overload, they indicate the maximum demand which the factory absorbs over a period of, say, 10 minutes by an acoustical or optical alarm device which makes it obvious to those working in the factory that they have reached the peak load for which the instrument is set As it is vital that industry


should continue to operate to the maximum extent possible, commensurate with the amount of fuel available, it is essential that most concerns should have these maximum demand indicators installed imediately so that they are able to gauge the quantity of electrical current consumed.
I think Government intervention in this matter is required. The Government should say to certain firms which are capable of producing this type of instrument, "Go full speed ahead, on the same basis which applied during the war," and they should insist that every firm which consumes electricity should install a maximum demand indicator within a year, and the peak load of each concern should be regulated.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it not a fact that these instruments which my hon. Friend advocates use ceramics which are in short supply?

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend may be perfectly right. I confess I do not know very much about the manufacture of these instruments, but I do know that in the majority of firms who buy electricity on the maximum demand basis these indicators are installed, and if they were obtainable at one time they must be obtainable in the future. If there is a shortage of ceramics it is the duty of the Government to ensure that whatever ceramics are available should be used for this vital purpose.
I know there are several other hon. Members who wish to speak and I will, therefore, conclude on the following note. It is obvious that there is a shortage of coal. That shortage is not the result of inefficiency on the part of the miner, neither is it the result of inefficiency on the part of those people who are today responsible for running private enterprise. I think it would be very unfair to say that the people running factories today are responsible for the present shortage. The people who were running factories before the war were responsible for the present shortage in that they had intimate connections with the people running the mines, but I will not go into that matter. It is quite impossible to hope that we shall get over these difficulties unless managements co-operate, and

it is very easy for managements to pretend they are co-operating and not to do the things they ought to do. I know that from my own experience.
If it is a question of getting the maximum production from the minimum amount of fuel available, it is the responsibility of private enterprise to play the game, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know precisely what I mean. You can use fuel in one way—the most economical way—and you can also use fuel in such a way that it is wasted. I think those engaged in private enterprise would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they wasted fuel, and I think they have some idea of the form of co-operation I have in mind. I hope that when the Government consider what action they will take to ensure that we shall not be in the same unfortunate position next year, they will realise that if the public have to continue to put up with the privations and the difficulties to which they are now subjected, and if an appeal is made to them on national grounds, the Government need not worry that the domestic consumers will not play the game. I conclude by saying that if only we had realised in the middle of the year that the present position was liable to arise, and if we had planned for it, I think that, although we could not have avoided the stoppage, conditions would have been ameliorated to a great extent by having introduced an early system of priorities. We must be prepared to admit that there was, I will not say an absence of planning—but things went wrong not because of an absence of planning—but due to the fact that it was thought we would be likely to get through. We obviously could not take into account the possibility of such severe weather conditions which, I understand, have been the worst we have experienced for the past zoo years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must take into account the fact that had we been rationed during the summer—and I speak as an industrialist—it would have been necessary during that period to have stopped production, because we were getting just about enough coal in our industries to carry on from day to day. It was a question of stopping during the summer months or stopping now. I think that in the circumstances, my right hon. Friend was fully justified in allocating to industry what he did during that period in the hope that the abnormal weather conditions


which have thrown everything out of gear, would not arise.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: I am very glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis), particularly his concluding remarks, because I hope to persuade him and the House that industry in the city and county of Leicester has not only played a very big part in co-operating with the Government and doing all that it can to secure a proper and balanced resumption of production, but has responded with speed and efficiency to the Prime Minister's appeal for a resumption. Within one hour of learning of the Prime Minister's appeal, employers and unions were summoned to a meeting by the Leicester chamber of commerce to discuss with the city electrical engineer and transport authorities how best to resume work, and the following day they agreed upon a scheme for staggering hours. Further discussions have now resulted in complete agreement being reached whereby industrial consumers are divided into two groups, A and B, the former working from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the latter from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. This scheme has been approved by the Central Electricity Board and by the regional board for industry, and I am informed that the electricity department can supply all the power that is needed for industry in the city and county of Leicester, provided this staggering scheme can be operated successfully. So far, so good.
The arrangements are, of course, subject to two considerations, to the union members agreeing, and to satisfactory arrangements being made regarding transport and married women in industry. On the first point of union members' agreement, I think there is good reason to believe that there will be no difficulties, or, at any rate, no insuperable difficulties. It is idle to pretend that it will not mean a very considerable and prolonged dislocation of the lives of working people in Leicester, or indeed, anywhere where these staggered hours are operated. This will be no short-term affair. As far as I can estimate, this will be a matter of 12 months, or it may be even be two years. However, all the unions' representatives, including the transport union, are backing the scheme up to date, and there is good reason to hope that the members will agree. Over

transport and married women, the difficulties are, however, likely to be considerable and possibly will even delay the introduction of the scheme universally by up to two weeks. I appeal to the Government to give all possible help in implementing this scheme as soon as possible wherever they can—and I propose to show in a moment or two where they can—because until this scheme is operated, the peak electricity loads of consumption in the city of Leicester will increase, and continue to be higher than ever. Yesterday the peak load in the city of Leicester was higher than it ever was during the whole of the winter with the resumption of industry at normal pre-crisis hours. I am sure these conditions will apply in other cities and places where industries are resuming. It is vital we should get ahead with the staggered hours scheme.
The difficulties of transport arc obvious, and I will not stress them to the House. There is, for instance, the difficulty of workers who arc far removed from their jobs and for whom the two hours' interval between the A and B groups starting and leaving off may not be enough. Those difficulties are aggravated by the considerable demands upon the transport services of the county made by school children. I respectfully suggest to the Government two ways of getting over the transport difficulties. The first is that the education authorities should, if necessary, postpone school hours. That may not be very convenient, and it may not be a good thing for the schoolchildren, but it seems necessary that that course should be adopted. Secondly, I ask the Government to help in the matter of transport by providing Army lorries and, if necessary, also drivers. I could take the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to Leicester and show him dumps of Army trucks and vehicles which have been standing there for weeks and months, and in some cases for years. They have been unused—many of them are perhaps unserviceable now—but I ask the Government to provide help by means of Army transport where the omnibus services cannot cope with the increased demands made upon them.
As for the married women, the difficulties appear to be rather more considerable. But fortunately, in the matter of the boot and shoe industry, I do not think that the difficulties need be so great as might appear. While married women form


60 per cent. of the female labour force in the boot and shoe industry and in the hosiery industry, the two staple industries of Leicester, in the boot and shoe industry their labour employs only about 10 per cent. of the electric power. I think it is possible in that industry, and perhaps in others—if the same conditions apply, that is if they do not use very much power—they nay, and indeed should, be allowed considerable latitude, whilst at the same time safeguarding against breaking the continuity of production.
So much for the electricity side of the picture. The staggering scheme seems to me to be a sound one. A good job has been done by both sides of industry, and I think Leicester and Leicestershire can fairly claim to be the first to evolve a scheme of this kind. It is the first part of the country, in an area which has been allowed to resume production, which has evolved a scheme of this kind, and one which I hope may serve as a model for other districts which are about to re-start. In particular, I would invite the Government's attention to the fact that that scheme has been worked out by industry itself. The Regional Board delegated the task; they gave general guidance, and left the rest to joint consultation between employers and unions. I sincerely hope the Government will draw the moral for the future from the success of that policy.
I conclude with a question and an appeal to the Government. The question is this. This afternoon we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade about the difficulties which the Government have encountered, are encountering and will continue to encounter in the matter of the manufacture of generating equipment. I am perfectly prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement, which I have heard corroborated by many economic experts and others, that it will take between two and three years for sufficient generating equipment to be produced to meet the needs of industry. I am prepared to accept that statement. But is it a fact—and I think we are entitled to an unequivocal answer to this question—that there are some 500 generating plants belonging to the Royal Air Force which are spare, which could be made available to the Government to meet the present shortage of plant, but which the Govern-

ment have so far taken no steps whatever to secure?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps it will be convenient if I answer that question now. We have taken steps to secure, not only from the Royal Air Force but from the Army, available generating sets, both in this country and abroad. They have not all come into action, but we have taken steps to secure them.

Mr. Nutting: I am very glad indeed to have that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. I gather it is an unequivocal assurance. Perhaps my information is previous to that of the right hon. Gentleman. But I heard this only the other day, and I must say I was very shocked indeed to hear it. I cannot argue the point with the right hon. Gentleman, because while that was my information, I cannot give him any date upon which the information was based. I sincerely hope that the information and the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given the House is a correct statement of the conditions.
Finally, I appeal to the Government to produce some definite plan for industry for the next 12 to 18 months. While the electricity position may be all right if the staggering scheme operates satisfactorily, the solid fuel position in Leicestershire—and, indeed, I should imagine throughout the country—could hardly be worse or more critical. After all, industry is dependent upon both positions being put right. For instance, there is no point in giving power to factories if they cannot be heated, or lighting them if they cannot be given the necessary steam or other coal-produced power. The Government have to give a lead in these matters, and they must let industry know where it stands. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, industry cannot be told today exactly how it will stand 12 months hence. However, I hope that, as soon as it is possible to envisage and foresee clearly the position regarding solid fuel supplies for industry, the Government will not hesitate one second, but will let industry know exactly where it stands. They must let industry know; they must let industry know how much coal it can get over the next 12 months, not just the next 12 days.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said there must be no repetition of this present crisis. Let the


Government, then, give industry a clear lead, and a clear idea of what its supplies are going to be, and how much stocking they are going to do. Industry will do the rest. What I have said about plans being made in Leicester and Leicestershire shows the spirit and the efficiency with which industry has done its part to meet the present crisis and the present national emergency. I sincerely trust that the Government will now, if now only, do their part as well.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I think we can easily say as miners, that for once in our island story we are not to blame for the crisis confronting this country. The hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings), who is now: I see, filling the ranks of the absentees by his absence from the Chamber, made the point about excessive absenteeism, which, he said, we seemed to ignore in the mines. It is as well that he should fully understand the position in some of our mines today. It is as well that he should understand the position that has been created over a period of seven years. It is as well that he should understand that some of our machines today in the mines at our long wall coal faces have 4 feet 6 inches of a jib, and they are working six days a week which is nine yards of coal taken from the heading and face If we multiply weeks 50 by 9 we get 450 yards, and if we multiply 450 yards by seven years we get 3,150 yards in the mine now, that was not there at the beginning of the war. So men have to travel that distance underground. I have stressed from time to time, when I have had the opportunity, the importance of not only providing travelling facilities for our men on the surface, but improved travelling facilities underground for men going from the pit bottom to the coal face
It is as well that the hon. Member for Hallam should understand, also, in regard to the arguments which he tried to advance about increased or excessive absenteeism, that we have men working "in by" with the temperature at 110 to 120 degrees. It is well for him to understand, in giving consideration to absenteeism, that some of those men, every day that they descend the shaft lose 7 to 14 pounds in weight. That may be a staggering statement to make, but it has, nevertheless, been proved by experiment. We have weighed the men before they have descended the shaft; we have weighed them when they have come

up; and the average lost is about 11½ pounds. I ask the hon. Member for Hallam whether he would continue to work six days in conditions such as those. It ill behaves any man from the Opposition Benches to complain about absenteeism in the mines. Whilst I agree that we ought not to remain silent about what absenteeism there is, whilst I agree that we ought to impress upon our men the importance of attending work every available day, I challenge hon. Members apposite, or even hon. Members on this side of the House, to go to men working in those conditions and say to them, "Work six days a week every week of the year." It is impossible.
I am myself an ex-miner, and I used to claim, in my younger days, that I could go six days a week. I tried it for a long period, but, finally, the conditions under which I worked compelled me to take days off from work to rest. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members opposite, who advance the argument that, if we can cure absenteeism in the pit, we can cure the problem confronting this nation in respect of coal, that such is not the case. Listening to the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite, one would be led to believe that the situation confronting the country today has dropped from the clouds, or had come upon us within the last four or five weeks. Any person who has that thought in his mind is suffering from a delusion. The situation confronting the country today has been slowly but surely making headway upon us over a long period, and time and time again, as humble miners in this House, we have warned Governments of the past that unless and until they took the step that had to be taken, a situation would ultimately confront them which it would be difficult to overcome.
In the short time at my disposal I want to ask the Minister of Fuel and Power, and the Government, to concentrate upon two things in order that the situation in the future may not be the same as that in which we find ourselves now. In my judgment the two essential things to which we must apply our minds if we are to prevent a recurrence of this trouble are these: we shall have to concentrate on attracting more men to the industry, and provide more machines to mine the coal. This House should know something about the age-groups in the industry, and how they have declined during the last


few years. In 1937 we had in the mines between the ages of 14 and 15 28,000. In 1945 there were only 12,000. If the 1937 figure of 28,000 in that age-group conk) have been maintained, those boys would have grown to young men, and would today have been the actual coal producers working at the coal face. In the next age-group, 16 to 17, in 1937 we had 43,000. In 1945 that figure had dwindled to 22,000. In the next age-group, which is a very important one from the point of view of haulage, 18 to 19, in 1937 we had 37,000, while in 1945 we had 50,000. What has happened? The war came along and took some of the men, and after appeals had been made in this House they were brought back. There is another important age-group which I do not want this House or the Ministry of Fuel and Power to overlook, and that is the age-group between 20 and 25. In 1937 there were 107,000, in 1945 that important age-group had dropped to 99,000. There is only one age-group between 14 and 65 which has increased in numbers over a period of five years, and that group includes the men over 65; in 1937 it was 16,000 but in 1945 it was over 24,000.
How can you expect men who have worked in the pits for forty odd years to do their best at 65 years? I know the Minister of Fuel and Power is doing his best and that his recruitment officers are playing their part, but we must get the young men and youths in the mining industry and in the mining villages to take a loftier and nobler conception of the dignity of mining. We cannot do it by preaching at them. What we can do is to persuade them and tell them the importance of mining as a national industry. We can tell them the importance of mining in the situation which confronts this nation. If I understand the mentality of the mining fraternity and the young men in the minefields, we have only to convince them that each has a part to play to help the nation towards prosperity and they will respond. But they will not respond if we keep preaching at them and condemning them. A lot of the evils which we now see come from days gone by when people, instead of lending a helping hand and treating the miners sympathetically, poured ridicule and condemnation on a body of men who are the finest in the world. I am much concerned

about the question of machines, because if we cannot get the machines, the men are of very little use. I ask the Minister then to concentrate upon these two points; first, increasing manpower, particularly the young manpower, and, second, procuring the machines so essential in the production of coal for the future requirements.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Everyone on this side of the House will agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) speaking from his long experience of the mining industry. Today's Debate has been notable for the many tributes paid to the miners and mining community from all sides of the House, and quite rightly so. I want to draw attention to the Lancashire cotton industry, which has not been mentioned so far, and especially to those mills which have to use solid fuel as against electricity. As Members know, the Lancashire mills have been living from hand to mouth for months past, and this is certainly no new thing which has suddenly come upon them. In this connection, there is a complaint made by the regional board—who in their turn had been approached by the manufacturers—that London would not listen to the arguments and repeated requests and appeals made by the board. That is a serious matter. There must be more liaison, as these boards are set up for the purpose of communication within their areas and with London.
A questionnaire was sent out to 15 firms in one of the towns which I know well. It employs 3,181 people, mostly in some process connected with the cotton and woollen industries, although one leather firm and one rubber firm are included. I should like to quote these remarkable figures. The coal required each week by these 15 industries is 942 tons, of which 351 tons is for heating purposes only. The total allocated under the Cripps Plan was 643 tons a week, but the amount received comes to a mere 389 tons, in total. But, above all, what is staggering is this: the man hours lost by these 15 firms, in the seven weeks up to 19th February, have amounted to 389,400. That, from a few firms in one small town, is an astounding figure. It shows what tremendous inroads have been made into a few industries in one town through lack of fuel. The


amount of coal required to start these industries in that town is 1,524 tons a week. All these mills are on solid fuel. They have no electricity from outside sources; if they want electricity they make their own.
Only four or five wagon loads of coal have arrived in the town in recent weeks. Yet those industries see the amazing spectacle of full coal trains going from Lancashire to Yorkshire and vice versa every day while they, although near the West Riding border, have to get their coal largely from Derbyshire. One would have thought that Derbyshire coal would have gone South, towards London, rather than going all the way to Lancashire, when Lancashire and Yorkshire coalfields lie on either side of this town. I beg the Minister to consider this point very carefully. Many coal trains have been diverted at marshalling yards; some before leaving Derbyshire and others on the way. That is what we complain of. Trains have been diverted to what the Minister thinks are industries of greater priority. It is impossible to have an industry of much greater priority at the present time than the cotton industry.
I would like to know what is being done about damage to machinery. The Government assured us that the first thing to be done would be to prevent damage to machinery arising from lack of fuel. There is, in my constituency, an artificial silk works which, due to lack of coal for heating, has lost 25,000 to 30,000 lbs. weight of material, which was in process when the factory had to close. It will take five weeks before a saleable product can be made at that mill. A similar thing has happened at other mills, where pipes and valves have burst owing to frost. This is one of the most serious aspects of the whole problem, in view of the promises that were made by the Government that at all costs this matter would be carefully watched. I ask the Government to pay special attention to this and also to the whole question of fuel supplies to the cotton industry.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Anyone who has listened to the speeches delivered during this Debate will agree that our request for it was thoroughly justified, and that the speeches have been moderate and have tended to be constructive. I hope that the remarks I have to make

tonight will follow those lines. I think that the House and the country are much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for his clear explanation, and the very full answers which he was good enough to give to several of the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). But I think that the House and the country are justified in regretting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not speak a good deal earlier in this crisis, and on more occasions last year. If we had had more speeches from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, then, giving such full information as he gave today, and fewer speeches from his colleague the Minister of Fuel and Power, the country would be in a better position than it is today.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind if I proceed to comment on some of the statements which he made, and some of the propositions which he put forward. I am sorry that he thought fit to repeat, what I think must be regarded as the very unfair attacks on the Central Electricity Board, which were originally made by the Minister of Fuel and Power. It is very difficult indeed—in fact it is impossible without betraying confidences—for members of the Board to reply. I think that it is most unfair for Ministers to shuffle off their responsibilities by saying, "We acted on the advice given by our experts." What was the advice given by their experts of the Central Electricity Board? The Board obviously made their calculations on certain assumptions. One of the assumptions was that there would be a normal growth in electricity last year, as there had been in previous years, and, if my calculations are correct, they made allowance for that and suggested that the actual consumption of electricity for this winter would be higher than it was the winter before.
In answer to a direct question put earlier by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade said that the Central Electricity Board was told to work on the assumption that domestic fuel allocations would be the same this year as they were last year. Is he quite sure that that was all that was told them? Is he sure that no other indications were given to them, and that they were not led to believe, as the public at large were led to believe, that


the situation so far as domestic solid fuel was concerned, would be much better this year than it was last? I do not know when the Central Electricity Board were given instructions and asked to make their estimates, but I presume that it was some time in the early spring when they made their preliminary estimates, and on 15th March a luncheon was given by the Electricity Development Association at which the Minister of Fuel and Power made a speech, and at which, I assume, Members of the Board and leading members of the industry were present. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power say on 15th March? I was not present myself, but I take a quotation from the speech reported in "The Times" on 16th March. He said:
No step would be ignored that would enable the Government to face the public next winter "—
That is the winter we are in now—
in order to secure ample supplies not only for industrial consumers but for domestic consumers equally.
If anyone of us had been present at that luncheon, should he not have been entitled to assume that the right hon. Gentleman was confident that domestic allocations would be all right this winter? Of course he would.
Then what about the question of electric fires? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power must have known perfectly well what the sale of electric fires was, and he could have calculated perfectly easily what the additional consumption would be. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss J. Lee), whose speech we all enjoyed so much, rightly talked about the desirability of people when they had money in their pockets buying electric fires and using them. As I said in an earlier speech on this subject, a person does not buy an electric fire just to take it home and look at it; he buys it with the intention of using it. It is significant that the additional coal consumption as a result of the increased domestic consumption of electricity amounted to over 3 million tons this year compared with last. Obviously, that is the sort of thing that the Minister of Fuel and Power ought to have foreseen. We do not go about the country boasting about the number of electric fires that have been purchased, without foreseeing that every fire purchased means an in-

crease in power consumption. I am not the only person who thinks that this information ought to be obtained, because the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman) thought that the Government ought to reveal what was the basis of the estimate by the Central Electricity Board.
Then there is the question of stocks. The Central Electricity Board are not responsible for the size of the stocks that are accumulated with which to start the winter. It is the Minister of Fuel and Power who bears that responsibility, and it has nothing to do with the Board. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George) showed with figures that I will not repeat, it was quite clear that on those stock figures the Government must have known that even if electricity consumption had run no higher this winter than the winter before, we should have exhausted the stocks, and anyone studying the matter would have known that we could not have got through, even with a mild winter and without the electric fires and the abnormal consumption of electricity. That is not the responsibility of the Central Electricity Board, but of the Government. They ought to have known, and taken steps in good time.
The President of the Board of Trade painted a grim picture of the conditions that are going to face industry in the course of the next few weeks. The picture he painted was very fair and interesting, but it is obvious that conditions facing individual firms throughout the country in trying to get their industries going again will be grim. The allocation of coal from one part of the country to another and putting straight the dislocation in the stocks of coal is going to be a severe task. That was not a state of affairs that arose overnight. Does the President of the Board of Trade seriously ask the House and the country to believe that nothing of that could be foreseen and that suddenly it came on them the week after Christmas? It is fantastic to believe that.

Sir S. Cripps: I never said that.

Mr. Hudson: That is probably why with great care and skill and, if I may be permitted to say so, with great honesty, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not speak in the last Debate we had in this House although he intended to.

Sir S. Cripps: I never intended to.

Mr. Hudson: How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile what actually took place in the last week of December—with all the appalling consequences which we now know—with the letters sent out by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 6th December, when he told industry that if only they would agree to achieve a voluntary saving of 5 per cent. no dislocation of industry would be necessary? I wonder how he reconciles this dislocation in industry which we are now suffering with a statement he made this time on 9th December, 1946, when he said:
The solid fuel position is better today by far than it was twelve months ago.
That will take a little explaining. We were very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade talking about the stocks he was going to build up by the end of this year? What are the stocks going to be at the end of the present year? What are they likely to have dropped to? Is it at all likely that they will be four million tons? I doubt it. I think the Government will be very lucky and that they will regard them: selves as very lucky if they emerge at the end of the winter with stocks that are not lower than 4 million tons. When pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the minimum stocks to start next winter would be 14 million tons.

Sir S. Cripps: I said "somewhere about."

Mr. Hudson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, "the minimum stocks." It might be argued whether they were to be 15, 16 or 17 million, but he did not think that it could possibly fall below 14. That, I suggest, is gambling because we know from experience that the last time we were perfectly safe when going through a winter we had stocks of 18 million tons, and I suggest that that figure is the minimum with which we can get through this winter safely. However, let us assume that it is only 14 million tons. That means that in the course of the summer the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to build up 10 million tons of stock on top of the 4 million with which he starts the coal year. In other words, out of the weekly production he has to put aside not less than 400,000 tons of coal a week. That is considerably more than has been done in any

recent year and it compares with the figure of somewhere just over 100,000 tons last year. If the figures of production run at anything approaching what they did last year the consumption, whether by industry, by electricity or gas undertakings, or by domestic users, is bound to be reduced very low indeed in order to enable him to build up those stocks. We shall be very interested to hear when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply if he can tell us what figure he does expect production to run at, and what is going to be the result in terms of reduced industrial production and, to that extent, unemployment during this summer while the stocks are being built up.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that his ambition was to see an even flow of industry through the summer and winter. That may or may not be right; I think that in the circumstances with which we are faced it probably is right, and it is a very much better doctrine, if I may say so, than that preached by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. But if, because of the reduced consumption of electricity and fuel in the summer, and the fact that industry can be carried on in longer hours of daylight and warmer weather, it is desirable to have an even flow of industry through the summer and the winter this year and in general, surely it was equally desirable last year. Similarly, if it is good this year surely it would have been wise for the Government to have introduced this system last year. Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade differs radically from his colleague the Minister of Fuel and Power because the Minister said last week:
In the summer and in the early winter, a rationing scheme … would have led to short time in almost every industry … impeding our export efforts which were vital at that time.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February 1947; Vol. 433, c. 78 and 79.]
I do not know how much he thinks those vital export efforts have been impeded as a result of the shut-down that is taking place today. I venture to think that it is very considerably more than it would have been if he had followed the advice of the President of the Board of Trade last summer and had had an even flow summer and winter. Hon. Members opposite are never tired of twitting us that we were responsible for unemployment.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear, and 1930 to 1934.

Mr. Shurmer: There were 2,000,000 unemployed.

Mr. Hudson: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for that figure. If he looks at his papers today he will see that the figure today is 2,350,000.

Mr. Shurmer: It is only a fortnight; then it was five years. Then they were begging for food. They do not need to do that now.

Mr. Hudson: If we had to have an inevitable slowing down of industry, we suggest that it would have been much better last summer to have faced that inevitable slowing down, and it could have been slowed down gradually. Priority could have been given to the industries serving the essential basic needs of the country and the export trade, rather than allowing everyone to carry on without any warning and suddenly to be face to face with the shock that we have just had.
I turn now to the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about generating plants. He painted a very gloomy picture indeed of the prospects that will face this country as a result of the shortage of generating plants. He quite rightly said that the shortage had its origins in the war. During the war it was impossible to produce on a scale similar to that of peacetime. In fact, only 38 per cent. of generating plant was produced during the war years, compared with 85 per cent. in a similar period prewar. Of course, in addition we sent a certain amount of plant to Russia which was equivalent in total to two years' installation of new generating plant in this country.
A committee was set up in 1944, I think, to deal with the question of postwar supplies and orders for generating plant in this country, and orders were placed. My point, which I am sure it was inadvertent that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention, is, What has happened to this plant? We are assured by people who ought to know that at present it is taking about four years to build a generating station instead of two, which it took prewar. We would like to know what priorities have been given to it, both as regards the clearing of sites as a result of inter-departmental discussions, the provision of labour and

raw materials. Is there any reason why a successful attempt should not be made to get back to the prewar time of two years, instead of the postwar time of four years? We believe that that is a very worthwhile consideration.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the domestic fuel position and foreshadowed a further cut. My personal belief, which I believe is shared in a great many quarters of the House, is that domestic cuts are already altogether too severe. The people in this country have put up for five years now with a reduction of 30 per cent. in their domestic fuel consumption. There is a point beyond which people cannot go. It is perfectly natural that people should have attempted to make good that shortage of solid fuel by turning to gas and electricity. The increased consumption of coal as far as electricity and gas for domestic use is concerned comes to a total of 6,000,000 tons against a cut of 14,000,000 tons, and the mere fact that people have done that shows that the British housewife is, quite rightly in my view, not prepared to go on being cold and that there is a point beyond which we cannot drive people. There is a point beyond which discomfort in the home will not pay. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has in the past been twitted about austerity. If we carry austerity to the point foreshadowed in his speech today, the final result will be a lowered efficiency of the country as a whole.

Sir S. Cripps: I would like again to correct that. I said exactly the contrary. We contemplate making no cut in solid fuel for domestic consumption. This is the third time I have said that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman—not because I mind in the least, but from a public point of view—will not repeat that again because it will get into the Press.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Hudson: If I said "domestic fuel," I apologise. I did not mean that. But the right hon and learned Gentleman will agree that he said he was going to maintain the cuts in the domestic fuel ration and in addition impose a drastic ration on domestic gas and electricity—

Sir S. Cripps: I did not say "drastic." I said that we must maintain the present cuts until we can substitute for them a rationing system which would give a large saving.

Mr. Hudson: Do not let us quibble—[Interruption.] I do not mean personally. I am perfectly certain that the housewife this winter will not quibble in the least about how it is described—she will know. She will not get as much gas and electricity for heating purposes as in the autumn of last year. That is what I am concerned to protest about. So far from having a reduction on last year, she ought, in our view, to have an increase. After all, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were responsible for raising the production of electric fires from 3,600 to 220,000 a month. That is the sort of planning which is also responsible for allocating only 11 per cent. of those fires for export against 40 per cent. for export of the wagons required to carry the coal to run the fires, and which allotted sheet steel for the manufacture of those electric fires which would, if it had been applied to motor cars, have increased our exports by between 15,000 and 20,000 motor cars. As far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is concerned, it is not unfair to say that the grim picture he painted of what we have to face in the next two months could so easily have been avoided. It is clear also from what he said that the suffering which he indicated that the people of this country would have to put up with is necessitated solely by his Government's refusal to produce sufficient coal.
That brings me to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock which we enjoyed so much. She said that no one can step up production at once and, indeed, I thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman said we had to proceed, as far as increased coal production was concerned, from 1945 and 1946. The hon. Lady said that the problem with which we are faced is the men in the pits today. I could not agree with her more. However, it is worth while remembering that the number of men in the pits today is almost precisely the same as the number of men in the pits in 1941 when 206 million tons of coal were produced. And 206 million tons of coal, if produced today, plus the seven million or eight million tons of opencast coal, would provide us with 213 million or 214 million tons, and that would solve practically the whole of the difficulties to which we have been listening today. It would not solve our national difficulties because it would

not leave us sufficient margin for our exports without which, in the long run, this country cannot maintain its existing standard of living. But let that pass. If we had 213 million or 214 million tons of coal, it would solve the problem of the home industry and of our domestic consumption of coal, gas and electricity.

Mr. Gallacher: What is the age comparison?

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Lady said that no man could be expected to work six shifts a week. She also said that the older the men get, the less they can work. I would only ask her to have a look at the figures in the Statistical Digest.

Miss Lee: rose—

Mr. Hudson: May I finish? I promised the right hon. Gentleman I would, and I was held up five minutes because I wanted to let another hon. Member speak. If she will look, she will find that the number of man shifts worked in 1941 was 5.91, and in 1942, when men had been withdrawn from the Forces and, therefore, on the whole the rest were older, the number of manshifts were 5.96 on the average.

Miss Lee: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt, it is very important to make it clear that no man can work six full shifts a week 52 weeks in the year. One must always distinguish between what men can do in an emergency and what they can do spread over a long time.

Mr. Hudson: I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will wait just one minute because it is only delaying the Minister of Fuel and Power. I give the hon. Lady the' point about absenteeism. I am only taking the Government's own figures. The hon. Lady gave a most striking account of what had happened in her own area of the Midlands and Cannock Chase. She said, and I am prepared to take her word for it, that the way those men were handled last week about the Sunday was thoroughly stupid to say the least of it, and that a potential willingness to work, an anxiety to work, a readiness' to do their best to meet this national crisis, was nipped in the bud and converted into a sullen sense of grievance. I am quite prepared to believe that possible, and I venture to suggest from these benches that the great mistake the Government


is making today, the great mistake it made in the White Paper and I believe I am backed up by what the hon. Member for Cannock said—is that they have set the target too low. I recollect that during the war, when I was trying to get food for this country from the farmers, I did not go about saying, "I am going to give you more money for your wheat." That was not the incentive I held out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I said they would get a reasonable price.
The miners today are getting a far better wage than they ever got before. What I said to the farmers was, "Here is the target. You all believe it is a target far higher than you can possibly attain, but it is needed in the national interest". What was the result? They beat that target. I believe that if the miners of this country were approached in that spirit, now that they have got what they allege they want politically in the shape of nationalisation, it is probable that they would provide the fuel that we need. I believe that the fact that appeal has not been made is the real condemnation of the present Government.

9.26 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): Every speaker who has addressed the House, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), has expressed the desire to avoid any reference to the past. I am bound to say that that afforded me considerable consolation. It is a fine spirit, further evidence of which I shall be happy to see recorded in the newspapers of the country.
The right hon. Member for Southport began his speech by promising to make some constructive suggestions. Perhaps he will perform that task on another occasion. But, there are some observations he made to which I shall address myself before I sit down. In the meantime, perhaps I may be permitted to reply to some of the questions that were directed to the Government Bench by hon. Members in all quarters of the House. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) asked whether there was any statutory provision for the action taken in the suppression, temporarily, of periodicals. The answer is that there is, of course no statutory provision, but it was possible to gain the consent of those who represent, for the most part, the weekly periodicals.

Mr. Byers: Sixty per cent.

Mr. Shinwell: That is true, but there was a majority. Actually there was some discontent about the decision, but the action had to be taken, having regard to all the circumstances. I think the action taken by those responsible for conducting the publications was, on the whole, quite satisfactory.

Mr. Byers: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why his Order said that the publications "are not permitted"—those very words "are not permitted"?

Mr. Shinwell: We had to rely for the most part on voluntary co-operation, but an instruction of some sort had to be given. The parties concerned naturally sought guidance, but the matter will be disposed of very shortly, as already some arrangement has been made for the resumption of those periodicals.

Mr. Byers: In other words it was a bluff.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) directed my attention to an interesting device for enabling industrial undertakings to gauge the amount of current they were using. I shall be happy to hear more of that device, and if it is possible to have it installed in industrial undertakings, we shall seek to render any assistance that we can.
The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) addressed himself to the subject of the thermal efficiency of coal, and other hon. Members spoke about the quality of the coal that is now being disposed of. I have never, at any time, from this Box or elsewhere, sought to deny that the quality of coal has, for some time past, been inferior, but hon. Members will note that that has been the position for several years. In any event, even if it had only existed in the past two or three years, the Government cannot be held responsible, nor has nationalisation anything to do with it, because the colliery undertakings, with the washeries, the screening plant and the necessary paraphernalia, were in the hands of private companies.

Mr. W. Fletcher: I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could express that difference in thermal efficiency in the statistics given, so that we should know the facts

Mr. Shinwell: I should be very glad to do so if I could, but it is not possible to


present, statistically, the difference in thermal efficiency resulting from the various qualities of coal. But I am conscious that the coal is far from satisfactory. I have had experience of it myself, and I dislike it intensely. Almost every morning, I receive, either at my home, or at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, an elegantly wrapped-up parcel which arouses pleasant thoughts in my mind until it is opened, only to discover that the contents consist of pieces of slate or shale or' something of the sort. There is too high an ash content in much of the coal now being used, but not until the National Coal Board, who have just taken over the mines of the country, are in a position to instal effective and adequate washing and screening plant, and to conduct the necessary operations, will it be possible to deal with this matter, but I hope it will be dealt with very shortly.
The hon. Member for Bury also asked me whether, if any rationing scheme was imposed, we would consider the position of elderly persons. Certainly, if any rationing scheme for which we are responsible, is imposed at any time, we are bound to consider the position of people of that kind, and, of course, of young persons. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) whether I could say how generators are allocated. The position is that we have discovered, in the country, a substantial number of generators, some in the possession of Service Departments. These generators are disposed of by arrangement with the regional industrial boards, which are situated in various parts of the country, which are under the supervision of the Board of Trade and on which the employers are adequately represented, so there is no question of nepotism or anything of the sort. The generators are disposed of in accordance with requirements, but if any difficulty emerges in regard to the disposal of these generators, and hon. Members will inform me of the facts, I will direct the attention of the Board of Trade to the matter.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman) whether firms which have been closed as a result of the recent trouble are likely to be indemnified against loss. That is a matter upon which I am unable to express an opinion. I would rather that

the subject was dealt with by the appropriate Government Department. He also asked whether it was possible for an industrial undertaking to obtain increased stocks as a result of pressure. No doubt he had in mind the case of Austins. I can assure him that no firm is able to obtain an increase in the coal allocation as a result of pressure exerted by an hon. Member or anybody else. We take into account all the facts and the circumstances, and the allocation is so provided.
I come now to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George). He suggested that the target figure the Government had in mind for this year in respect of coal output was too optimistic. That target figure cannot be regarded as optimistic if we take into consideration the minimum requirements of industry, including gas and electricity, and domestic consumption, having regard to the need for full time in industry and the need to provide domestic consumers and non-industrial establishments with adequate supplies. It is the minimum requirement if we are to get through with satisfaction. I agree at once with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and with others who have spoken in similar terms on the subject of export, that this will not provide a margin for adequate exports. The Government regret that it should be so, but we cannot speak in terms of ample exports until we have satisfied the needs of British industry. That is the primary consideration.
It may be that the target is optimistic in this sense: We may not be able to achieve it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is another matter. I shall address myself to that subject before I sit down. If I may say so, it is the vital element in this matter. It is quite useless for hon. Members to speak in terms of maintaining British industry and full employment, to say nothing about exports or providing—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport indicated—adequate supplies to domestic consumers who are suffering if not hardships, serious inconveniences until we can secure ample production. Production is the vital element. But, as I ventured to point out to the House on a recent occasion, I have, all along, addressed myself to the question of production. While I have been compelled, because of circumstances over which we have no control whatever, to


consider economies and allocations on a limited scale, I recognised throughout the whole of last year that unless it was possible to step up production, economies and rationing would be of little avail. We dislike economies. We are not asking the public or the industrial consumer to accept austerity for austerity's sake. We are not asking the public to accept a rationing scheme, or industrial undertakings to accept fuel allocation schemes, because we like them. We would prefer it to be otherwise if we could gain adequate production, and I take it that hon. Members in all quarters of the House are in agreement on that. But, if we are to secure ample production of coal in this country, to enable us to maintain industry and to provide for electricity, gas and the like, we must consider the implications of that policy.
The implications are obvious. It is no use hon. Members opposite declaiming against absenteeism in the pits. I am far from condoning absenteeism in the pits, and I have spoken in strong terms to miners in various parts of the country, although, at the same time, I understand the causes of absenteeism. There has been some reduction, but there is still absenteeism, just as there is in other industries. As it happens, the: only industry in the country that is subject to statistics in relation to absenteeism is the mining industry. It is in the limelight all the time. Nobody on these benches condones absenteeism, and, if we can, we will take every possible measure in order to reduce it. Hon. Members opposite must be under no illusion. To declaim against the miners in respect of absenteeism will not gain us a single ounce of coal. If we are to secure increased production, the main prerequisite is that we should gain the support, the friendship and the goodwill of the miners. We must be prepared to provide all the necessary incentives to the miners.
I was not aware that hon. Members opposite were always in favour of high wages for miners. Perhaps, if the miners had received higher wages in the past, there might have been a better spirit in the mining industry. But I was not aware that hon. Members opposite were in favour of higher wages for the miners, and I say this with no desire to be controversial. I assure hon. Members of that. This Debate has been conducted in good

temper, and I am not going to throw the apple of discord into the arena. But I say to hon. Members opposite that there is no use in demanding that the miners should work six shifts a week, without exception and without regard to the circumstances, and that there should be no absenteeism when as a result of the conditions

Mr. Eden: Who made that demand?

Mr. Shinwell: It is very difficult to interpret the speeches of hon. Members, The right hon. Gentleman did not hear all the speeches on the other side, and he might consult the pages of HANSARD. There is no use in talking about miners working full shifts and full weeks, having regard to the fact that, in the past, it was quite unusual in the mining industry to work six shifts a week. Be that as it may, it is production that is essential, but there is another condition. If we are to get ample production, we must have the physical conditions in the pits to enable that production to be achieved. I am only too well aware that there has been in recent years a deterioration in the pits of this country, in spite of increased mechanisation—which is not always adequate to the purpose—and that conditions are by no means suitable for the purpose we have in mind. All these matters are being dealt with by the National Coal Board. Nevertheless, I believe that it is possible for the miners of the country, British miners—and I have no objection to foreign miners, if the men in the pits are prepared to work and co-operate with them—to produce the coal the country needs if we provide the necessary conditions in the pits to enable them to do the job.
Hon. Members might ask what we have done in that connection. I have not time to dilate on the details, but I venture to suggest that much has been done in the past year to obtain the co-operation of the mineworkers of the country. If I have addressed myself more to that aspect of the subject than to rationing or economies, I confess my mistake, but, in all the circumstances it was the right thing to do. In any event, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport objects to rationing—because he has spoken about the severity of certain aspects of rationing, which indicates his dislike of it—then, clearly, we must address ourselves more


and more, and as vigorously as possible, to the subject of production.
That brings me to the question of manpower. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) spoke on the subject of foreign labour. Other hon. Members in this House and outside have spoken on the subject, and many articles have been written on it. We are not unconscious of the needs of the mining industry in respect of manpower. But, first, we must make up the yearly wastage. Last year, 80,000 men and boys left the mining industry. Why are men leaving the industry? It is obvious; for the most part they are leaving because it is not attractive enough. Men do not leave an industry if it is attractive and if it is congenial. We gained 76,000 as a result of intense propaganda. What is going to happen this year? No one can say. We hope to overtake the wastage. At present, we have 697,000 men on the books, but that does not mean that 697,000 men are engaged in production. In fact, we have far too many men on the surface, and, in the opinion of technicians, who understand this industry, there are far too many men engaged in haulage. Haulage, for the most part is obsolete; we want more men at the face.
Do any hon. Members, like those economists who write to "The Times" and other newspapers, suggest that all we require to do is to get hold of 100,000 men and plant them in the pits, and that the coal will emerge? The men have to be trained, and, even if they are trained, places have to be found for them in the pits, and that is not so easy as some hon. Members suppose. I venture to ask hon. Members whether they think that I would object to putting 100,000 men into the pits if I had them? Why should I object, if I thought that I could get more coal by doing so? The National Coal Board would put them there if they thought it desirable. But we know their views. is it any use putting men into the pits unless the conditions are such that they can be absorbed? But the matter is under constant examination.

Mr. Byers: Is it not a fact that the French have already done this?

Mr. Shinwell: I am glad the hon. Member has raised that point. I cannot go fully into the matter tonight, but I have the documents in my possession, and the

hon. Member will be surprised to learn that foreigners who are placed in the French mines do not succeed in raising the output per man shift, and that is what matters. They actually reduce it, and, if the hon. Member doubts my word, I shall be very glad to show him the documents and the figures.

Mr. Byers: The total is 16 per cent. higher.

Mr. Shinwell: I would not put the knowledge possessed by the hon. Member —and I know that he has some knowledge about some things, at any rate—against that of the French Minister of Mines and the technical experience of the French. But that does not mean that we cannot employ more men if we get the right men and the right conditions for absorbing them.

Sir A. Salter: French coal production has increased to 105 per cent. of prewar production.

Mr. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of 105 per cent., he must be able to relate it to something. It is no use speaking in vacuo about percentages. They must be related. As I cannot discuss the matter further tonight, I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University and the hon. Member for North Dorset would consult together. At the same time, it must not be assumed that we are opposed to the employment of more men or of foreign labour in the pits, if we can get the right men.
I now come to the question of electricity. Even if we were to secure 4,000,000 tons of deep-mined coal per week and another 200,000 or 250,000 of opencast coal, making about 4½ million tons of coal a week, first of all we would have to consider whether we could move it about. It is no use producing coal if we cannot obtain the necessary mobility. The coal has to be moved immediately it is produced. There are always millions of tons of coal in the pipeline. The coal comes out of the pit, it is dumped into the wagons and the wagons begin to move, unless they are left in the sidings or marshalling yards which is no advantage to industry or to the domestic consumer. Therefore, we have to get adequate transport, and everybody must know that transport facilities in this


country are at present far from satisfactory because of deterioration resulting from war conditions.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Why were 70 per cent. of the wagons exported?

Mr. Shinwell: Hon. Members opposite must decide on which leg they stand. If they are asking for exports they must not complain about exporting wagons. What do hon. Members opposite want—more exports or less? I understood they wanted more exports. They want to be selective in their exports. Let us ask the industrial undertakings who are producing for export whether they want to be selective. A great deal depends—I say this without offence—on which constituency is represented by which hon. Member.
Several other questions have been addressed to me. There was the question of the oil conversion plan. We are hoping that this summer we shall be able to save at least 2,000,000 tons of coal and another 3,000,000 tons in the winter, making 5,000,000 tons in all, as a result of oil conversion. Again, that depends on whether we can get the tankage, which requiries iron and steel and boiler makers to make the tanks. We also require the equipment. We are doing all we can in that direction. I was asked by the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke whether we were obtaining sufficient supplies of opencast machinery. We are spending a large amount of money on acquiring opencast machinery from the United States, as a result of which we hope we shall be able to step up the production of opencast coal. I will pass over the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University about the breakdown being due to administrative mistakes. I assure him that is not so. There is no question of any breakdown in administration. I think it was the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) who addressed himself to the subject of Cannock, and said that this all arose out of bureaucracy. As it happens, the only criticism to which I have been subjected in connection with the Cannock affair was from an ex-colliery agent, associated with a private undertaking, who said I ought not to have intervened. If there was any fault at all, apparently, this person does not believe there was any bureaucracy;

and in fact, there was no bureaucracy. What happened was that the representatives of the National Coal Board objected to men being employed on Sunday because, they said—and quite rightly— that, while admiring and applauding the fine spirit of the men who wanted to work on Sunday, it was no use men working seven days a week—six days a week was enough —and that if a man worked six full shifts, one could not expect him to do more; one could not make Sunday work a permanent feature of the mining industry, except for maintenance and repairing, and certainly one could not do it for production alone. As far as I was concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) knows, I was in favour of these men's services being utilised on this particular Sunday, and perhaps for other Sundays in an emergency; but there was no bureacracy about it and no administrative failure, or anything of the sort.
Another point which the right hon. Gentleman raised to which I wish to refer was the question of putting the facts and figures before the public and the miners. As regards the miners, I have been criticised all over the place because I have addressed too many meetings in the country, but these meetings were mainly meetings of miners to which I put the facts and figures. I have done that at public meetings and private meetings, at conferences and the like, never missing an opportunity of putting the facts before them, however unpleasant they were, and, if I may say so, taking a lot of kicks in the process. As for putting the facts before the public, I really am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington. Over and over again, in the House and elsewhere—and it is on the records—I issued warnings, in October, in June [Interruption.] Hon. Members will not expect me to give another recital of those warnings; they are on the records, and what is more, "The Times", an irreproachable newspaper, declared that I had given warnings over and over again, as far back as last February. Even if we get 4 million tons or 42 million tons of coal—and we shall work hard to cause that amount of coal to be produced—we have got to turn a large part of it into electricity, and we require generating plant. No accusation can be levelled against the Government because of the scarcity of generating


plant; nor would I utter a single word of complaint about the late Government in that regard.

Mr. Eden: We have not blamed the right hon. Gentleman for that.

Mr. Shinweli: If the right hon. Gentleman has not blamed me for everything under the sun, including the weather, I would like to know what he has been talking about. Finally, as regards rationing, what has been the case presented by right hon. Gentleman opposite? It has been that we should have rationed last year. The right hon. Member for Southport said that I should have accepted the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I do not accept his advice, and he does not accept mine; we work in collaboration, which is quite different. But hon. Members opposite failed to accept the advice of their Government in 1942 on the subject. Nor was there the slightest collaboration. If there had been collaboration then, we should have saved ourselves a good deal of trouble now.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

REPORT [18th February]

Resolutions reported:

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1946–47

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding f,20,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to de- fray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

[For Schedule,' see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1947, Vol. 433 C. 1003–4.]

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1946–47

ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

2. "That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 65,000 all ranks, he maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

[For Schedule, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1947, Vol. 433, C. 1038.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Grimstan: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out "£50,000,000," and to insert £49,999,909."
If hon. Members will look on the Order Paper at the other two Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, which I should like to discuss at the same time—in line 27, leave out "and insert" £19,999,900,"and in line 28, leave out" £150,000,000," and insert "49,999,900,"—they will see that this reduction is directed to the item in the Supplementary Estimate on page 13, which reads: "Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned." We had a discussion about this during the Committee stage. I should like to refer hon. Members to the Explanatory Note in the Supplementary Estimate, which says that this sum of money is required in order to
…hake provision for substantial losses incurred on accumulation of surplus marks and schillings…
We had a Debate upon this during the Committee stage, and we were not satisfied with the reply given by the Secretary of State for War. For that reason, I then gave notice that we would raise the matter again during the Report stage. That is why this reduction is now moved
I think this very large sum of £20 million, which now has to be found by this House, was presented very casually in the Supplementary Estimate; and, in fact, during the presentation of the Supplementary Estimate the item was not even mentioned. As I shall endeavour to show, we indict the present Administration for allowing this racket to assume scandalous proportions, and for which we


have now, apparently, to find this money. Some hon. Members who were then present will be familiar with the Debate during the Committee stage. Therefore, I only wish to reiterate briefly how these losses arose. They have been incurred through paymasters finding themselves in possession of marks and schillings very much in excess of the pay which was issued to the troops. This came about through practically universal speculation on the part of the troops, and also, I gather, of others as well. The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to this, said that everybody was in, what he described as "this merry game."
The right hon. Gentleman also stated that it started in the time of the Coalition Government when the troops first got into Germany. Well, that may be so; but I cannot, and do not believe, that it could at that time have assumed these enormous proportions. First, the non-fraternisation order was then in existence, and that would, I think, had impeded these transactions to some extent. But, in any case, if it started then, the present Administration stands all the more to blame for allowing it to develop, and for taking no effective action until a year after they assumed office. That is our indictment of the Government—that a whole year was allowed to elapse before effective action was taken to check this practice. No mention was made of the matter in the House until 10th May, 1946. I want to remind hon. Members of the statement that was then made. It was in the form of a written answer to a Question. I do not know whether the Question was originally put down for oral answer or not, but the answer was a written answer. It concludes with these words—and be it noted, the thing had been going on then for over a year:
I have, however, thought it proper to inform the House of my plans and at the same time to give the troops provisional notice of the change."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 34.]
In other words, it more or less said, "Well, chaps, you are going to have another two months to get on with this, and then I am going to stop it." A weaker sort of announcement it would be difficult to imagine. There was no word of condemnation, incidentally, in the statement. But I found that in Austria the practice was still going on in September—that is,

four months after this statement was made. I want to refer to a paragraph in the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, a sub-committee of which visited Austria in September, 1946. I propose, if the House will forgive me, to read an extract. It will not take very long, and it sets out the position in Austria as it was then. This was what they reported:
The troops are paid in schillings, provided by the Austrian Government. It would be expected that the amount paid out to the troops would exceed the amount received back through the Army canteens and shops, and that, therefore, Austria would be meeting the cost of pay. In fact this is not the case, as, owing to speculation in canteen goods, the receipts are in excess of the amounts issued as pay. As the goods in the canteens are supplied largely from the United Kingdom and therefore cost sterling, there is a net loss which falls on Army Votes. The same state of affairs used to exist in Germany, but a voucher scheme was instituted there during the summer—
the summer following the statement of May, 1946, I have referred to—
to protect the British taxpayer from the effects of such speculation. It is intended to introduce a similar system in Austria "—
and this is the point—
and Your Committee consider that this should be treated as a matter of urgency.
There is a sub-committee of this House reporting four months after this statement that the matter had, in fact, not been treated as a matter of urgency in Austria Where these losses were still occurring. The fact is, as I have said, that during a whole year this Administration, in the first year they held office, allowed this racket to continue and increase, and then gave two months' warning to the troops that they were going to stop it. In those circumstances I must say that it is hardly surprising if these malpractices did not appear as venal in the eyes of the troops, when they were treated in that way by the Administration.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us if this £20 million is the extent of the losses. Is it the whole bill, because he told us that there are other Services involved? I believe some personnel of the Control Commission are involved, and I presume that by "other Services" he means the Royal Air Force. I want to know if this £20 million is the whole loss that has been incurred—it may be un-


fortunate for him, if it is so, that it has all fallen on Army Votes, and that he is the Minister who has to answer to this House for it—or are we to be treated to some more shocks later on, and to find that this is not the total amount of the losses? After the past handling of this affair, the right hon. Gentleman can hardly be surprised if we question his assurances that the evil has been stamped out, and wonder if they really are correct.
I turn now for a moment to another aspect of this matter, and this raises the question whether these losses should really fall on Army Votes, and hence on the British taxpayer, at all. I raise this because of certain questions and answers which were given in the Public Accounts Committee at their meeting on 11th April, 1946, about a month before the statement in the House to which I have referred was made. It emerges from the questions and answers, and from the proceedings in the Public Accounts Committee, that these mark notes and schilling notes were printed in the United States, and we only paid for the printing of the notes and nothing for their face value. It also emerges from these proceedings that the notes fall to be redeemed by Germany. I want to quote a specific question and answer from this sitting of the Public Accounts Committee. There are many columns on this matter in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee and I cannot quote the whole of them, but only give a certain extract. I wish the House to understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Cuthbert) put this question:
What I was trying to get at was this, that there will be a certain number of mark notes put down in our account that we have expended in Germany. When the time comes to repay, there will be no question of a difference in exchange. We shall get back the equivalent in sterling that we spent in making the marks?
This is the answer from the permanent official who was present:
No, those notes are in Germany and the Germans will ultimately hold them all. The redemption of them, therefore, will, automatically fall upon the German Government. They will have nothing to do with us at all. Those notes will exist in Germany and will be legal tender in Germany. The British people will not be concerned with them, nor the British Exchequer.
I must confess that I do not understand this. I want to know how it is reconciled with the statement that the Paymasters

have accumulated large balances of marks which will be a direct loss to the Exchequer when, in the answer to this question, we are told that these notes have nothing to do with the British Exchequer at all. I want an explanation, because frankly I do not understand it. There is another extract I wish to quote. Another member of the Public Accounts Committee asked:
Is there any control of or limit to the number if notes issued, or the amount issued for 'irmy purposes? 
The answer given was:
Yes. There is exactly the same control as is exercised in this country for the issue of sterling to the Army or anywhere else. The controls are exactly the same in Germany.
In view of what has happened, it appears to me that this control must have broken down, and I want to know a good deal more about that. I find this whole business very disquieting.

10.15 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Before the hon. Member passes from that subject, would he make it quite clear whether he is referring to Allied Control marks or Reichsmarks?

Mr. Grimston: The only word used is "mark." The reference in the first case is to marks which were printed in the United States. Frankly, I do not know the answer, because neither Reichsmarks nor Allied Control marks are referred to by name. The question is about marks only. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member would repeat that remark which I did not hear.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member was not intended to hear it.

Mr. Grimston: I find this whole affair very disquieting, but some Members opposite appear to treat with levity the loss of £20 million. We are uneasy as to whether this £20 million is the actual extent of the loss, and whether those losses may not still be taking place. We are very uneasy as to whether the present system of vouchers is really effective. There is no doubt that in the course of time this matter will be thoroughly probed by the Public Accounts Committee, but that, I understand, will not be for a year or 18 months. I think that the size of the loss and the gravity of the position is


such as to call for an immediate inquiry, and I want to know what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on that subject. In conclusion, I think the way this matter has been handled, both inside and outside the House, reveals a lack of grasp and a standard of administration which is lamentable. It is the responsibility of the present administration, and it has resulted in enormous losses to the taxpayer, the extent of which we do not really know at the present moment. It is for this reason that I and my hon. Friends are seeking to reduce the Vote.

Mr. Cuthbert: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am worried about this matter, firstly, because this has been referred to by the Secretary of State for War as a "merry game" being played by our Servicemen in Germany, and, secondly, because of the issue of the other kind of marks by ourselves. We are told that the Services are to blame for this loss. I think that if we go into what actually happened in Germany, we shall find out that this "merry game" started with our own Government. We are told that Servicemen in Germany or in Austria, cashed a certain amount of their salaries there, and received a certain number of marks. With these marks, they went either into N.A.A.F.I., or some other canteen, and purchased cigarettes. They then sold these cigarettes for German marks, for possibly ten times the amount of marks that they had received in order to buy the cigarettes. We are told that this loss is due to the fact that these men went to a post office, or possibly the N.A.A.F.I., and either bought postal orders or savings certificates and sent sterling home. I say that this has nothing to do with the original Exchequer, operation of the money which the men drew for their sterling salaries. They were possibly carrying out what we on this side believe in—a little personal private enterprise. Any excess they made was remitted home.
I maintain—and this is where I blame the Government—that the Post Office should have covered the operation. No one can make me believe that a comparison could not have been made between the amount of marks given to Servicemen for the sterling part of their salaries, and those marks that must have

been remitted to post offices in Germany. Any business man would tell you at once that you do not get over-bought to an enormous extent with any foreign currency, without thinking what you will do eventually. Something could have been done at that time. The marks could have been covered. That was what was in my mind last year when I took up this point in the Public Accounts Committee. It was in April, 1946, that the Public Accounts Committee asked the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) read to the House tonight, and it was a month afterwards, in May, that the Government felt that some action should be taken. It was two or three months afterwards that they decided to pay our troops in Germany in the form of vouchers. It is, therefore, a rather curious coincidence that someone should have dropped on that after it had been referred to in the Public Accounts Committee. I believe that this was not "a merry game," but that a red herring has been drawn across our path.
We must remember that tie notes were printed in America, and issued without any backing. In the Public Accounts Committee, I asked who would eventually redeem these notes. The answer was as my hon. Friend has just read out—the German Government. I would like an answer on this matter in connection with the redemption of these mark notes rather than on the "merry game" which the troops are supposed to have played by way of private enterprise. The marks issued were' probably different from Reichmarks but marks of any kind were currency in the country at that time, whether they were issued by ourselves, or the marks current in Germany. I think that is the real reason for these debts coming through now, for which the British taxpayer is asked to pay. We had a definite reply that there would be no cost to the Exchequer, and, therefore, no cost to the British taxpayer on foreign exchange loss or the redeeming of these particular notes. I am worried about that, and I hope that an answer will come from the Minister. I feel that this is another instance of either ignorance or in competency in dealing with such an important question as that of foreign currency being used by this nation to pay our troops and in regard to the recovery necessary eventually to put the matter right.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): I cannot complain of the assiduity with which hon. Members have pursued what appears to be a very serious leakage, and, indeed, is a very serious leakage, entailing a substantial loss to the British taxpayer. It is the duty of the House of Commons to watch carefully and faithfully the expenditure of the Government in all respects. I am glad to hear that I have a little sympathy from the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) when he commiserated with me, to a certain extent, on my having to answer for the depredations of others besides the Army.
Hon. Members may have noticed recently a letter in "The Times" which rather took me to task for giving the impression that this £20 million was solely the result of the black market speculations of the Army. It was not. Included among those who contributed to this loss were the other two Services, although I presume in a lesser degree, because they had smaller numbers of officers and men in Germany; members of the Control Commission, who had the same facilities as the troops for speculating; officers and other ranks of the Dominion forces; civilians of voluntary organisations; and all those others who had access to the British canteens.
I do not want to ignore the responsibility that lies on the Army. I think that I stressed, when I last spoke on this matter in Committee, that this was immoral. But I tried to show, and I was supported to a large extent by the hon. Member for Westbury, that I believed that a majority of these transactions were of a small nature by a large number of troops, and that I would not condemn too easily the officers and men of all the Forces, who had borne the burden and heat of the day, when they found a chance of making easy money quickly. Others besides them have done that, and it is my duty to defend the Army, unless I am convinced that the Army is doing something that is morally entirely reprehensible. I think that the degree of illegality is something which, although it cannot be excused, might be understood by those who understand the conditions' under which the soldiers operated at the time of their active operations and immediately afterwards.

10.30 p.m.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question on the procedure of the House? We are told that this large sum, which we are asked to vote tonight, includes the defalcations of other Services. If so, why is it on the Army Vote? It is the first time the Army Vote has been asked to bear the cost of other Services. How does he reconcile this with the ordinary Rules of procedure of this House?

Mr. Bellenger: The reason I am answering for everybody is that the Army acted as general bankers and much of this money came from the canteens which the Army controls. The German Reichsmarks were paid through the canteens and then were converted into sterling as, indeed, they had to be. However, I think it would be best if I gave the House as frank an account as I possibly can of what did happen. The hon. Member for Westbury asked me whether this £20,000,000 represented the whole of the losses incurred in this way. It does not. I do not think I shall have to come and ask the House for a further approval, but, nevertheless, this £20,000,000 is part of a larger sum, the greater part of which, £38,000,000 was written off in the Army account for 194546. So far as I can estimate, the total loss amounts to £58,000,000. [Interruption.] I am trying to give the House the facts as I have investigated them. I had not the honour of presenting the Estimates last year, but £38,000,000 was written oft in last year's Estimates.
Obviously the Public Accounts Committee, which is the appropriate Committee to examine these matters, will have to go into this loss in greater detail than the House can hope to do tonight on the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates, but the delay will not be as long as the hon. Member for Westbury anticipates. It will not be eighteen months before the Public Accounts Committee get down to investigating these in detail. I understand they should be dealing with the matter very soon—I believe in April—and I think the report will be presented to the House by July. Of course, if it is necessary to do so, they could even make an earlier report. The matter will be dealt with in greater detail when the officers of the War Office will be there to be examined by hon. Members of this House.
Of that £58,000,000, the sum of £13,000,000 was due to losses in Dutch


currency, £41,000,000 to losses in relation to German currency, and £4,000,000 in relation to Austrian currency. With regard to the £13,000,000 in Dutch currency, hon. Members might wonder why we have not recovered that. I can only say, if I am in Order in doing so, that it was agreed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it should be written off as part of the general financial winding up of the war. Holland had been overrun by the Germans, and had been occupied for a considerable period, and I rather think that what happened at the end of the war, when not only the British Army but also the American Army overran Holland, many of the Dutch people, starved of goods, lost faith in their currency and got rid of it to the troops and others who came into their country. The surplus arose out of speculation in sterling notes; it arose out of speculation in Continental currencies, which I have outlined; and it arose from the loot captured from Germans and from German pay offices. Regrettable as it may seem things like that do occur in war when troops overrun all sorts of organisations. When our troops overran Continental territory they captured large numbers of German marks, which were, presumably, there for paying the troops and buying things in the country. I regret to say that our troops, having come into the possession of a large number of German Reichsmarks so easily, proceeded to convert them back into sterling.
They also derived loot through the captured marks from the banks in the territories which they took in the course of operations. Perhaps that answers in part at any rate the question asked by the hon. Member for Westbury, who mentioned that in the report of the Public Accounts Committee an official of the War Office, when asked who was going to redeem these marks—and I have not had the opportunity of looking up the relevant passage in the report—replied, "The German Government." That was true in relation to the German Reichsmarks which we controlled, that is the German Reichsmarks in which we had to pay our troops, because that was the legal currency of the country in which the troops were stationed. Unfortunately, the depredations arose from a large number of free Reichsmarks in the pockets of the Germans, who proceeded to exchange

those Reichsmarks with British troops or British civilians and not only with them but also with others because this was not confined to the British alone but people of other nationalities were concerned, too—for what were mainly canteen goods. It also arose from the sale of captured enemy property as well as British property.
There was one source of supply which the War Office could, not control and that was the cigarettes which were sent out from this country I believe duty free by British civilians to their friends or relations overseas. Therefore, I am going to suggest that if there is to be any condemnation of British troops and those engaged in this illegal operation, condemnation must also fall on those of the British public who sent out large quantities of cigarettes, which they must have known were not for the personal use of the troops. That is where a large part of the operation lay, because while we could control N.A.A.F.I. supplies, we could not control the parcels of cigarettes which were sent out from this country, and a large proportion of this loss was incurred because the cigarettes then and now were the real currency in Germany. I may say in that respect that as soon as that was realised—in September, 1945, I think it was—not I but the Treasury put a stop to these cigarettes being sent overseas duty free. That had a very considerable effect on the transactions which were going on in Germany.

Brigadier Peto: In the computation of this large sum of £58,000,000, has account been taken of the, fact that the Allies attached to another Command were also implicated in these transactions, and to what extent are they also guilty—if that is the word to be used—of illicit trading? That includes the Poles, the Czechs, the Belgians and others. Are they all implicated in this, or is it only British troops we are taking into consideration?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. All of them—if they had access to British canteens.—and of course the Poles would naturally have had access to British canteens—were responsible. I cannot apportion the illicit profits as between the different Allies. but they were all implicated.

Mr. Bowles: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend? It was


rather a shock to the House when he seemed to blame the parents and friends of soldiers who sent cigarettes. He seemed to assume that they knew that this malpractice was going on. Will he clear that up? It seems to be rather an unfair attack on the parents in question. If they are now presumed to have known about that, a fortiori the War Office should have known about it.

Mr. Bellenger: What I am saying is that if the House is going to condemn the recipients of the cigarettes, they must implicate also those who were sending, not hundreds but thousands of cigarettes from this country to the troops overseas and who must have known that they were not for ordinary consumption by the recipients of the parcels. They must indeed, I say they did know what was going on. I do not want to blame anybody. As I understand the hon. Member for Westbury, he is trying to fasten the whole of this on His Majesty's Government and this present Government, but I am going to show that this has deeper roots. Up to the time when the zones were formed, we were under the joint command of S.H.A.E.F. and it was very difficult indeed for us to take the drastic action which we ultimately took without the approval of those with whom we were working. I can best illustrate my point in that connection by saying that when we did decide to take what was a very drastic step—as I hope I shall show in a few minutes—we did it in advance of our Allies. The American Government, who were also involved in these losses—possibly bigger losses than we had to face—did not take the step we did, namely, changing the currency, until six weeks after we did it, and the French Government did it six months afterwards.
As I understand it, the gravamen of the charge of the hon. Member for Westbury is not—although I take it he condemns them for their actions—that the troops and others were the culprits, but that His Majesty's Government were the real culprits for not stopping this earlier. I shall attempt to answer that indictment, as he called it. The history of these illicit dealings goes right back to the days when we first landed in Italy. I believe those were days when this Government did not have control. In the days when our troops first landed in Italy, very big

profits were made there. But because we were able to return the Italian lire in the form of payment of wages to Italian civilians we were able to work off the accumulated—

10.45 p.m.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. We are listening to the right hon. Gentleman with interest. Presumably, if he discusses the loss in which the British taxpayer is involved—the loss of lire in Italy we shall be in Order if we follow him in that matter?

Mr. Bellenger: I am not suggesting that there was any loss. I am trying to show that there was no loss in Italy, but by way of illustration that the indictment laid—

Earl Winterton: My point was whether we should be permitted to discuss the interesting argument which is being put by the right hon. Gentleman regarding lire in Italy.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Unless some portion of this particular sum concerns lire, quite clearly that subject cannot be discussed.

Mr. Bellenger: I think the noble Lord misunderstands the point I was making. I was not trying to show that we lost Italian lire in Italy but, by way of illustration, I was trying to show that the indictment laid by the hon. Member for Westbury against the present Government was not complete, because the speculation, or the method of speculation, went right back to the days when our troops landed in Italy.

Earl Winterton: I must raise my point of Order again. That is exactly my point. It is not hostile to the right hon. Gentleman but obviously if he is to discuss what happened about lire in Italy, it must be open to us, on this side of the House, to go into the story from the beginning. I ask formally whether we can discuss this matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the Estimate before the House relates only to marks and schillings, not lire. On the other hand, I gather that the right hon. Gentleman was not endeavouring to deal with lire transactions as such but to show how a certain practice began. He would appear to be in Order in doing that.

Mr. Bellenger: I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Westbury as to whether this £20 million represented the total loss. If I am to answer, I must tell him the whole story. I have told the House that the £20 million we are discussing tonight is not the whole story. In answering his question, I thought that it was only courteous and frank to tell him that it was part of a larger sum. I will not pursue the illustration of Italy, except to say that these transactions went right back to the days of the landings in Italy, and that therefore what happened, namely, speculation by troops and others, took place not only in the days of this Government, but also in the days of the Government of which the hon. Member's Party formed a majority.

Mr. Grimston: The indictment is for allowing losses to the British taxpayer to develop to such an extent. As the right hon. Gentleman has said that there was no loss in Italy, that provided an example for the present Administration.

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member can take no comfort from that. It was only an accident that there were not heavy losses in Italy, and those losses could have been put down to the Government in which his party was the predominant partner. I do not want to pursue that matter now, except to tell the House that the reason that the Government was not indicted, was because these lire were pumped back into Italy in a way in which it was not possible to pump back the German marks into Germany.
This is not the first time, of course, that speculations of this nature have arisen. They have arisen before, though I do not want to give illustrations unless I am pressed to do so. They arose at the end of, or during the first world war; and as late as 1935 in Hong Kong. It is very difficult to stop these things happening when armies overrun conquered countries. We did take reasonable steps to stop it. First of all, when the operation in Normandy was planned, a special part of the joint S.H.A.E.F. Staff was set up to deal with these things. It was not possible to issue to the troops, at any rate at that time, a special currency. They had to be paid in the currency of their own country—and I want the House to observe this—or in the currency of the country in which they were serving. I have made, as far as I can, an investigation into the

method by which we, I believe, stopped this business. I have not found any precedent for the manner in which we did stop it. That manner was to issue an entirely new currency called B.A.F.V.S. I cannot find any precedent for paying a British soldier in currency which was not legal tender. And indeed, before we took that drastic step, which we did because the problem was becoming so large, we had to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, we had to get the permission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we had eventually to get a Royal Warrant to cover the issue of these B.A.F.V.S.
I want to make it clear here, because a misconception has arisen as a result of the first Debate, that the amount of losses incurred by the troops and others purchasing savings certificates is very small. The war savings movement, which operated in the Army as well as among civilians, and which has provided so many honest savings, was responsible for only a small part of the losses, a very small part indeed. The main loss, I should imagine, arose from the purchase of postal orders, which the troops and others were able to buy. They were much more negotiable than the war savings certificates. A stop was put to large purchases of postal orders earlier on. For instance, in January, 1945—and the House should note these dates, in view of the date of the announcement by my predecessor in May, 1946, that we were going to issue a new currency—the troops were prevented from buying postal orders except up to the amount of pay drawn at the pay table on that day. This step resulted in a sharp decline in the amount of postal orders purchased by the troops—1by the troops only be it noted. They were the only ones over whom the War Office had complete control. The amount per man per month after that order was issued dropped from 17s. 6d. to 8s
It was known that these transactions were b takiner place, and, although they very difficult to stop without changing the currency, it was thought that it could be controlled. For instance, it was hoped that it would be possible to pay the troops in Reichsmarks, because there were large numbers of them out there. These Reichsmarks came into the paymaster's office. Indeed, that went on satisfactorily, so that there was no debit balance, if I may put it that way, against the Government, until early in 1946, when the surpluses of Reichsmarks


amounted to £4½ million. That figure gave an indication of the size of the problem, and it was soon afterwards—in March, 1946, I think—that the matter was brought to my attention and I gave approval for the issuing of a new currency.

Mr. Grimston: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if that £4½ million was apparent in January, and that the matter was brought to his attention in March?

Mr. Bellenger: No. In fact, it was apparent in February and in March I was asked to give approval to a new currency. It took something like two months or more to prepare that new currency. One has to remember that it had to be proof against forgery and hon. Members who are more versed in the matter of preparing a currency than I, will know that currency notes have to be very carefully drawn, and a special paper has to be prepared, and then special printing has to be done in order to avoid as far as possible the chances of forgery. It is interesting I think to know that there are—I am told—many forged sterling notes circulating on the Continent at the present time.
I am asked why it was that two months' notice was given to the troops and others before this new currency was introduced. I think, apart from the physical delay in the preparation and printing of the notes and their distribution, there is a reason. It is that many troops had in their pockets Reichsmarks which they had legally acquired, and it would have been very unfortunate if, by one stroke of the pen, we had declared all that currency non-legal and issued immediately a new currency. There would have been in the aggregate large sums of marks honestly earned which would have been unconvertible, and I think although the effect was undoubtedly to give a greater opportunity for those who engaged in these illicit dealings to increase their holdings, the fact remains that, on balance, we decided to give this notice and I think we ought to have given notice.

Earl Winterton: When the right hon. Gentleman says "honestly earned" does he mean part of the men's pay?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes. There are also other ways in which the British soldier

can earn an honest penny. Soldiers, I believe, indulge in games of cards—not necessarily the high-brow games of bridge, and they may earn a little.

Mr. Grimston: Does the statement made in May last refer to B.A.F.V.S.?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: Yes. The announcement on 26th May, 1946, by the former Secretary of State for War, referred to the new currency known as B.A.F.V.S., which is now circulating in B.A.O.R. I have endeavoured to be as frank as I can in this matter. The House wants me to apologise for not having gone into greater detail when introducing this Supplementary Estimate. We are all so wise after the event. Perhaps we should have decided to use these at the start. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, as I say, many of us can be wise after the event—as, indeed, I hope the Conservative Party is after the Election of 1945. We can all learn our lesson when we know what the lesson consists of. However, I have not attempted to hide anything from the House on the Report stage and in conclusion I would say that I do not think that any Government can be condemned for not taking these revolutionary and drastic steps of changing the currency, and of paying the soldiers in currency, which was not legal tender. This had never, as far as I know, been done before. It was only in these desperate circumstances when the problem got out of all control, that we had to do it, and we did it.
A question was asked me as to whether my assurances that we had stopped this were good. Well, I can say no more to the House than that I hope we have stopped it. I think we have, because there are no accumulated balances now that we know of. But in conditions such as are operating on the Continent at present, when people are starving and want to get access to stores which are only in our hands, they take all the opportunities they can, both honest and dishonest, of getting hold of those stores, and the temptation, even today, to British troops and others all over the world, who are in possession of and guarding valuable stores, is exceptionally great. I am glad to tell the House that, on the whole, the British Army's honesty of conduct is as good as it has ever been in the Army's history, but when cigar


ettes were such al. easy way of earning quick profits, it does not surprise me that all those with access to cigarettes took advantage of making some money on the quiet. It is most regrettable that the British taxpayer has to pay for it, but that is the purpose of this Supplementary Estimate, and I hope it is the last one of its kind.

Mr. David Renton: I think the House would have had no reason to complain about the starting of the "merry game," or to complain if it had gone on for, say, a fairly short time, before it was detected. The gravamen of the complaint is that it went on for a very long time after it had been detected, and that very large liabilities accumulated which the taxpayer is now being asked to pay. I am sure the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his candid statement that altogether £58,000,000 was involved, but we have to remember that £58,000,000 is equivalent to 9d. in the off Income Tax, and 9d. in the off Income Tax in the past year or so would have been a very welcome aid to national recovery. We have listened—if I may say so on behalf of the House as a whole—with interest, patience, but considerable misgiving to the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman, and it seemed to me to be quite invalid, and a complete evasion of the issue, that he should refer us back to certain speculations in Italy. It was not quite worthy of the right hon. Gentleman himself that, in referring to those explanations, he should contradict himself.
In the first place he said it was an accident that there was no loss in Italy; he then went on to say that the Coalition Government should have been asked to bear some of the loss. But was there a loss, or was there not? There was a further contradiction in his statement as to what he believed to be the origin of the "merry game." He told us with regard to the loss of £40,000,000 worth of marks in Germany, that the whole thing started in the necessary circumstances and misfortunes of war, because our own soldiers managed to get hold of Reichsmarks, to put it bluntly, as loot. That is hardly surprising, but when he referred to the £13 million of Dutch currency, I think he did a slight injustice

—I hope unintentional, and I should like to give him an opportunity of correcting himself—to a very gallant nation. He said that he presumed that it started in Holland because the Dutch lost faith in their own currency. That is the first time I, personally, have ever heard that the Dutch ever did lose faith in their currency; indeed, it is remarkable the quickness and the zeal with which that country started the task of postwar reconstruction as soon as the war had come to an end; and I have never heard personally—I stand open to correction—that the Dutch ever lost faith in their currency. The truth was that the Dutch were hungry for cigarettes, as everybody in Europe was. They found an easy way of getting them. The authorities—I am not laying blame at this moment—made it possible.
A further attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to lay the blame at the feet of somebody else was his remark that all this started in Germany back in January, 1945. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember the sequence of events, we were in occupation of only a very small part of Germany in January, 1945. It can hardly be that the problem had reached any dimensions at all until well after V.E. day.

Mr. Bellenger: What I said was that it was in January, 1945, that the troops were prevented from buying postal orders up to more than a certain amount, namely, the amount that they had drawn at the pay table.

Mr. Renton: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I accept what he says. His own statement goes to confirm that at any rate the "merry game," as it has now come to be known, had not really started until a much later date, and if I may refer the right hon. Gentleman to a very illuminating statement which he made on an earlier occasion when this matter was being discussed, it does seem that the main cause of the trouble was the snowball which was gradually built up by means of the N.A.A.F.I. and other canteens. Here I come to the crux of the whole matter. If after, shall we say, the N.A.A.F.I. had accumulated £1 million worth of marks which they did not know what to do with, somebody had stepped in, the British taxpayer would not have had to write off £58 million. He would have had to write


off £57 million less. We should perhaps not be here tonight; we would have accepted the explanation that before this matter had reached large proportions, it had been discovered, and we were being asked to write off such loss as could not have been prevented.
What I am saying tonight is that this is a loss which could have been prevented by somebody. Frankly, I am not so certain we ought to make too much political capital out of this. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself personally knew about it. I am not so certain that his predecessor knew about it, but somebody—and it was somebody pretty high up in the War Office, for whom, first one of them, and then the other, was responsible—most certainly did know it, and it is because the War Office was in a position to save the taxpayer this money, and it is because the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor are, under our Constitution, responsible for what happened in the War Office, that we on this side of the House have no other alternative, in our duty to the British taxpayer, than to protest at the failure of the War Office, and to refuse to vote this sum.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I, too, admired the candid speech of the Secretary of State for War, but I confess it left me much more puzzled than I was before he rose to speak. In the first place, is it not a fact that the redemption of all the currency that has been used in the countries under discussion is their responsibility, and not ours? So far as I know, we are not responsible for any amount of marks, lire, francs, or schillings that we may require. For instance, if the Minister wants a given number of marks to pay our troops in Germany over any period, those marks are supplied by the Central German Bank. Equally the Treasury and the War Office have absolutely no responsibility far conducting any deflationary process that may be necessary as a result of expenditure on occupation. I remember, when I was serving in the Forces, a man, not a member of the British Forces, hawking around a sackful of German paper money which he was prepared to dispose of to the highest bidder. But that money, no matter how much was put on to the market through this illegal process, could not Cause any extra cost to this country.
I was mystified by what the Secretary of State said about control of the N.A.A.F.I. Obviously he must be able to control the N.A.A.F.I., because all allocations of goods going to canteens in Europe have to be submitted to, and approved by his Department. If he had any idea that this sort of black market was going on, why did he allow goods to go to these canteens far in excess of normal troop requirements. About nine months ago, I asked the Minister of Food a question in relation to soap rationing. He assured me that there was careful scrutiny of allocations to the N.A.A.F.I. If tonight the Secretary of State is right there has been no scrutiny, because they have provided three or four times as much as any normal person would possibly want. It is no good the Secretary of State apologising unless he can assure us that there is no fear of a repetition, and that only sufficient supplies go out there for the real and genuine needs of our Forces in Germany.
I would like to ask what action has been taken by the War Office with the paymasters. The right hon. Gentleman said that this black market was known after the last war. It is a fair assumption that the War Office should have taken some early steps to guard against a repetition of it. What instructions were issued to paymasters? I can follow the right hon. Gentleman's process of thought as regards the soldier gathering to himself an illegal quantity of currency. I can see how he can double or treble what he gets over the pay table. But how does he get this back into sterling? That has never been made clear. The right hon. Gentleman told us about postal orders, but nothing about allotments. What steps did the War Office take to see that allotments and remittances did not exceed a given percentage of each man's pay? I spotted this trouble for myself in Italy, and with a certain amount of pride in the Navy, we immediately took steps to see no person could send back more than a given percentage.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: We took the same steps in the Army. Obviously a man could not remit through the normal channels without sending postal orders, and he could not allot to his dependants more than he was entitled to earn in pay.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am much obliged. If the allotment was stopped, and the average of the Forces for postal orders was only of the order indicated, I cannot see how this amount has grown up to such a large sum, or how this foreign money, in fact, became converted. There were, as we know, pound notes floating around Europe, but I am certain the Secretary of State is not going to tell us that a large portion of this loss was due to pound notes. This is inconceivable. They were difficult to get hold of since they were treasured by the population, and they commanded a much higher price than a man could hope to get for them either in exchange, or when he got back home. I must say I am mystified as to how this foreign currency managed to get back to this country. There has obviously been a gross leakage, but it was said that when a leakage was discovered it was stopped. Yet £58,000,000 has disappeared, and the Secretary of State has given no indication of how it disappeared.
The Secretary of State said that when they introduced a new currency two months' notice was given. But surely this makes nonsense of the Measure. Look what happened when the Belgians changed their currency. The existing note issue was froze and no one could exchange more than a certain percentage of it. If they wanted to change any more, they had to prove to the banks that they were legally entitled to it. Why could that not have been done? No hardship would have been caused to anybody. Any member of the Forces would have been entitled to a percentage to keep him going, but if he had more, he would have to explain to the Paymaster how he got hold of it and justify it. If that had been done, instead of allowing it to drag on for two months, we should not have to bear this large loss.

Mr. Bellenger: That was done, and they were not allowed to transfer more than a certain amount without a certificate from the commanding officer.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Secretary of State did not say that in his original statement. If that was done, what notice was given to the troops of the introduction of this currency? Obviously, unless it was done suddenly and without prior notice, the same effect would be achieved as if two months were allowed to drag on. I

feel that it is a very bad blot on the Government's record that this debt was allowed to accumulate. The steps taken were not taken in time, and were weak and half-hearted, and no satisfactory explanation has yet been given of how this foreign currency was converted and how this strain on our finances has occurred.

Mr. Braddock: This is a sad story, and I do not think that any real excuse can be made for what has been going on. But I do not think that in this case we can dare to be or can afford to be too righteous about this sort of thing. After all, these men on the Continent were doing what most people in this country in the past have been prepared to do. If people saw the opportunity of getting money for nothing, without work, they snatched at it; it has been regarded as a part of the system. As the seconder of this Amendment said, this is a little private enterprise. Why blame these people for indulging in private enterprise? This is one of the prices we have to pay for war, and it is not by any means the greatest or most terrible price. War brings this sort of thing with it, automatically, right through the whole scheme. War is and always has been an opportunity for contractors and speculators to make easy money. Therefore, I suggest that we take this lesson to heart and recognise that this is merely one example of the sort of thing that is liable to happen not only under war conditions but under peace conditions, when the great incentive is supposed to be above all things, to make a profit at any price. These men on the Continent lived their young lives under those conditions. It is obvious that those who were in command over them and to whom they should have looked for an example, have been carrying on the same wicked campaign. [Interruption.] Oh yes they have; I know that they have made a bit as well, for they were in the swim. We are all to blame. Right through the peace we have been supporting this kind of thing. Personally I hope that this very dramatic example will bring home to the people of this country the stupidity, the weakness and the folly of this sort of business.

Brigadier Low: Having listened to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) I must take up a few moments of the time of the House to contradict what he has just said. Surely he can distinguish between private enter-


prise which is within the law, and private enterprise which is directly contrary to the law. I was horrified to hear the Secretary of State for War standing up at the Despatch Box and defending the direct contradiction of orders. He knows perfectly well that orders were made making this traffic entirely illegal, and it is something of which this House should be ashamed, that the Secretary of State for War could stand up before it, and defend members of the Army who were breaking those orders. I cannot stress that point too strongly. The Secretary of State for War has informed us in the first instance—

Mr. Bellenger: Let us get this matter right. I am endeavouring to get the Army to obey orders, and sometimes I am not helped in that respect by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Interruption.] I say that again, and may I ask the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) to say in what respect I encouraged the troops to disobey orders?

Brigadier Low: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not going to condemn the men for indulging in this trade. I suggest to him that he is at any rate condoning a breach of the orders which were issued in his name.

Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps I was not as severe as some hon. Members in saying that the British Army had caused the taxpayer this loss, in a criminal fashion. What I attempted to do was not to condone their offence, but to mitigate it.

Brigadier Low: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he did not condone this offence. I am sorry to take up any of the time of the House on this matter, but it strikes me as being of some importance. I come to my next point. The right hon. Gentleman told us and I hope we may hear more facts about this—that others besides the Army were engaged in this business. Indeed, I think that has been said before, that the two other Services were engaged in a presumably lesser degree. Surely it is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility to know whether it was in a lesser degree or a greater degree? Does he not know the facts? They must be available by now. He then told us that Dominion Forces and some of our Allies were engaged in it. Could he be more explicit on matters concerning the

Dominion Forces and the Allies? We should have some further explanation, and if it is impossible to give an explanation, I suggest that on that and one or two other points there is great need for further inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This matter of £38 million which has been sprung upon us—

Earl Winterton: £58 million.

Brigadier Low: If I may make my point, we knew of the £20 million and there is £38 million extra. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman or other Members of the Government have not told us about this £38 million earlier during their tenure of office? Why have they not come forward and explained it—

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, May I ask your guidance, without any hostility to the hon. and gallant Member? In his speech my right hon. Friend answered a direct question from the Opposition Front Bench as to whether the figure of £20 million was the total incurred. He answered out of courtesy to the Opposition Front Bench. Is it in Order for the Debate to range over all sorts of other things, which are not the subject of this Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Speaker: I am not clear where the other £38 million comes in. I thought it was in the last Army Estimates, and therefore had been passed by this House and finished with.

Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] I suppose I may make a point of Order. If I am not allowed to do so, I must ask for the' protection of the Chair. Further to that point of Order, may I say that the right hon. Gentleman devoted a considerable portion of his speech to the question of the £38 million, though he did not go into it in detail. It would be very hard if we could not refer to the £38 million.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the £38 million was passed in the last Estimates; the House has had an opportunity of debating the £38 million and the matter is therefore finished. I understand that is what the Secretary of State has now said. It is not now in Order to debate that matter.

Brigadier Low: My point was—I do not know whether it is in Order, but perhaps I may put it to you, Mr. Speaker—that though the right hon. Gentleman told us that it did appear in previous Estimates, what did not appear was that this £38 million was relevant to black market operations by our troops and civilians in Europe. That has never appeared in writing, or in an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, at any time during this Parliament. That was the point I was trying to make.
The right hon. Gentleman has tried to cast the blame for some of these losses, if not all of them, and for some of this practice, if not all the practice, on predecessors of his, whether on his side of the House or on this. From the facts that he has given us, I suggest that it is clear that these operations never assumed the proportions which this Supplementary Estimate shows they have recently assumed, until well into the middle of last year. The right hon. Gentleman told us that in February of last year he was informed that there was a loss of £4,500,000—that is, one-fifth only of the total covered by this Estimate. How can he therefore come to us and say that it is all due to something which happened before? Let us examine what steps were taken by the right hon. Gentleman to put a stop to this. It is clear that if he was informed in February that the loss was £4,500,000 and it was impressed upon him that this loss might increase, it was incumbent upon him urgently to take steps to put a stop to this situation. He tells us that it took two months to prepare new currency notes which would be proof against forgery. Is that an example of urgent action by the right hon. Gentleman opposite? I would ask hon. Members if they could not get, not full currency notes but suitable notes in the form of cheques printed more quickly than that? They are not full currency notes, current throughout the world. Surely some steps could have been taken, as an urgent matter. In actual fact, I think it took from February until September or October before these notes were current in B.A.O.R. As it appears at the moment, that is an example of gross neglect. If the right hon. Gentleman can show us, as the result of an inquiry, that there were reasons, perhaps the House will be satisfied.
It seemed to me that at the beginning of this Debate this evening hon. Gentle

men opposite, particularly below the Gangway, were treating this matter with jocularity. It must have become apparent, when the right hon. Gentleman announced that the sum involved amounted to £58 million, and might be even more, that this is not a matter for jocularity. Perhaps, as one of my hon. Friends has just suggested, those hon. Gentlemen who have treated this matter lightly really do consider pounds, shillings and pence to be meaningless symbols. But I hope that the House will give this matter their closest consideration, and that the right hon. Gentleman, or his hon. Friend, will tell us, before this Debate ends, that there will be further examination of this matter, either in the form of a public investigation or an inquiry by this House.

11.30 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman has been at some pains to widen the field a good deal in so far as the responsibility for illicit trading is concerned. I ask him to give us a clearer definition of it. He gave the impression, first, that he condoned this in the wider field. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low), has since drawn from him the statement that he was not attempting to condone the offence but rather to modify the condemnation. I quite appreciate that. The fact is that in his original contribution tonight, he has suggested that practically everybody in B.A.O.R. and the Allied Control Commission are concerned in this. That is something into which the House should look, because I am not at all satisfied that it covers so many people. He went on to say that, in particular, those who had access to British canteens were concerned. When he was interrupted, he replied that in that case, there were some Czechs, Poles and people of other nationalities concerned.
I would like to know, first, why he mentioned members of the Allied Control Commission. Were they included among those who used N.A.A.F.I. canteens? The reason I ask him that arises out of another report to that which has been quoted tonight—the Second Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. It was shown, by one of the witnesses before that Select Committee, that there were certain people who, working under the


Allied Control Commission, or likely to do so, might well be included in this category. I am trying to narrow this down and to get at the real responsibility for this actual trading, to which a good deal of attention has been paid. Evidence was given before the Select Committee on Estimates, that in addition to the civilian staff provided for in that Estimate—referring to the civilian staff of the Allied Control Commission—up to 8,350 posts of various grades might be filled by personnel of the Armed Forces, and charged to Service Votes. Earlier in the same Report it had been shown clearly that the temptations open to members of the Allied Control Commission were greater than the temptations open to the British troops. The only point I want to make is, that the right hon. Gentleman has included the whole of the Occupying Forces in a rather sweeping way, also their relatives in England who sent the cigarettes. I believe this can be narrowed down to comparatively few people out of the total number in Germany at the time.
In the second place I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman tried to bring in what had happened in Italy, and made a somewhat political point at the end of his speech. I think his party has been particularly insistent in saying that it wishes to be judged by results. However fortunate previous Governments may have been, I suggest that they too must be judged on results in this case. I do not think previous Governments came to the House with the original or Supplementary Estimate, saying that £20,000,000 should come out of the pockets of the taxpayers in order to meet illicit trading purchases by troops overseas. I hope he accepts that argument.
Thirdly, he has made, I submit, a very wild charge tonight against troops from the Dominions. Although there may be some justification for it, he has not given us much ground on which to decide whether the charge is justified or not. In any case, I think the House should know whether any steps have been taken to recover the amount involved from the Dominion Governments concerned. The British taxpayer should not be expected to bear the whole charge of this illicit trading conducted by troops from the Dominions.
The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) raised the question of how this loss arose in relation to the Post Office. I do not know whether the Government Front Bench will give me a little attention, because I think this is a matter which should be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is important tonight that we should try to discover where the original responsibility lay. While I entirely endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool has said, what we went to get at is the source and origin of this business. I believe the origin was not among the British troops. The Government's responsibility surely was in the printing of the notes which were circulated. These notes, as I understand, were printed without any backing whatever, and evidence given in the Committee on Public Accounts shows that the only charge on these notes was the cost of printing them. Surely what has happened is this, that these postal orders have been presented, and there has been no backing for the marks from which they were changed. I suggest that there lies the responsibility in this matter, and that it is the fact that these marks had no backing which has led the country into this shocking debt.
The right hon. Gentleman was bold enough to say that as soon as he was aware of this matter he took very prompt action, and he went back to January, 1945, to support his case. He has tried to pin responsibility for some of it on to the previous Government. Admitting that they were aware in January, 1945, of a certain amount of loss being involved, and that certain steps were taken to prevent an excessive number of postal orders being sent home, in spite of the fact that that had been appreciated, it was not until 5th November, 1946, that the British expenditure in Austria was reported on by the Select Committee on Estimates, which recommended what my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) said in his opening speech. He stated right at the beginning that the Select Committee on Estimates had said in their Report, which was published on 5th November, 1946, that exactly the same thing was happening in Austria in schillings as was happening in Germany in Reichsmarks. If the right hon. Gentleman had been aware of what was happen-


ing in Germany he should, one would suppose, have been suspicious of what might happen in Austria. Yet it took him from the time he took office until November, 1946, to find out what was happening in Austria, and it seemed abundantly clear from that that he was equally unaware of what was happening in Germany. These vouchers, we hope, have stopped a certain amount of expenditure. But the Secretary of State for War has, in a very airy sort of way, put the blame on the whole of B.A.O.R. and other troops for this loss. The real responsibility, I suggest, lies with the Government, and however hard they try to pin this on previous Governments they cannot absolve themselves from this responsibility.

Earl Winterton: I stand at this Box tonight in a rather queer position for me—the position of being an appellant. I am going to make an appeal to the Government on this important matter. We on this side of the House do not often pay compliments to the Government, but we with right hon. and hon. Members opposite accept the fact that this is to be regarded as a serious matter. They regard it, think, as seriously as we do and we are grateful for what has been said. Here is a situation, not merely a question of whether the Government are to blame or not, but a situation in which the House of Commons if it is to do its duty must exert itself. Let us look at the history of the matter. I do not want to make an attack on the Financial Secretary to the War Office who is a justly popular junior Minister of this House, but I would say by way of obiter dictum that when dealing with these Estimates he never even referred to this matter at all. That was the first step.
11.45 p.m.
The next step was that the Secretary of State for War made reference to it. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the 213 million but it was not until tonight that we learned, also by way of obiter dictum, that this was not the end of the matter. We had not heard that we had already had a loss of something like £38 million, so that the total is £58 million. The right hon. Gentleman opposite may smile, but nobody will smile at the observation which I am going to make. It is this. It is a pretty serious thing that we should be asked, late at night, to discuss

part of a dishonest transaction which has resulted in a loss to the British taxpayer of £58 million which, I understand, represents something like 9d. in the £ on the Income Tax. That is not the most serious part of the thing. The right hon. Gentleman referred to lire in Italy. Apparently, the Financial Secretary to the War Office rather objected to his referring to it, because he subsequently got up and raised a point of Order as to whether we could discuss lire. Apparently in Italy, where there was a similar loss of lire under the Coalition Government—I do not want to make a party point tonight—means were found of dealing with the matter, and the money was, as he expressed it in a not very elegant, but a very helpful and useful phrase, pumped back into Italy.
We on this side, among other questions to which we have sought and have not received answers, want to ask this question: Is there no way of making the German and Austrian people responsible for this huge sum of money? Is there no way of getting it out of them? Are we, as representatives of the British taxpayers, calmly to accept tonight a situation that here are 20 million badly needed in this country—[Interruption.]—does anybody object to that?—and that there is no way of getting it back from Germany or Austria? The hon. Lady opposite may think it is a mistake, but I think the majority of people in this House would say that we ought to try to get it back.
I am an appellant tonight, and I shall carefully avoid saying much more, because if I do, I may cease to appear in that role. I make a most earnest appeal—I speak for everyone on this side of the House, and for my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, with whom I have been in private conversation—and I say that if ever there was a case presented in the House which required a Select Committee of investigation, here is that case. There should be a Select Committee to inquire into the whole thing. I make no charges, because I do not know who is guilty. It may have been the Commander-in-Chief, it may have been the humblest private soldier, but somebody is responsible for the loss of this vast sum of money to the British taxpayers.
There is another very serious side to the charge. The right hon. Gentleman, tonight, told us—I did not raise a specific point of Order at the time, although


I might have done so—that, although the whole of this particular amount of £20 million is going on to the Army Estimates, a lot of it was not incurred through misbehaviour of members of the Army at all. He told us that some of it was incurred through the action of sailors and airmen, and some through the action of civilians. It may be, as an hon. Gentleman opposite said, that one should have in one's heart a feeling that this is the result of war conditions, but whether it is or is not the result of war conditions, the fact remains that the British taxpayer is being mulcted of this enormous sum of money, that we are asked tonight calmly to pass this Supplementary Estimate, and that no mention has been made that a single person has been punished for that. I hear the most alarming stories of people who have made money in this way—not only private soldiers, but others—and not a single person has been punished. I make a most earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—and I may say that I believe it is an appeal which would be backed up by public opinion irrespective of party throughout the country—to announce tonight that he will appoint a Select Committee of inquiry into the whole of these transactions—not only this particular Supplementary Estimate, but the whole £58 million which has been lost.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has been a Member of the House for a great many years, and he has not spoken in any way which is contrary to those traditions which are well recognised and understood by those who have been for a long time Members of the House. On such occasions it is never the desire of the Government, who understand the feeling of the House, to try in any way to hide any of the details and facts which led to the presentation of such a case as has had to be presented in connection with this Supplementary Estimate for the year 1946–47. We have no need and no reason to hide anything from the House.
The various points which have been made have, been dealt with, both tonight and on the previous occasion, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. I would like to say, in reply to the noble Lord, who referred to the Financial Secretary to the War Office just now, that it was in no way any fault of

his that on the previous occasion when the Estimate was discussed in Committee, he did not actually refer to this matter. I say that because I do not want a junior Minister to have any particular blame apportioned to him in the minds of the House with regard to his handling of the statement. Because it was known that the Secretary of State would intervene later, on that particular issue, he did not refer to it.
Many other detailed points have been made, but perhaps the House will pardon me if, acting upon the tradition of the House in this matter, I address myself at this stage to the specific appeal which the noble Lord has addressed to me. This House of Commons is sometimes criticised from outside because of its extraordinary rules and regulations, and the number of Committees which it sets up at the beginning of a Session. The fact is, of course, that it checks a great many of what might become public scandals by its care of its rules and by the steps it takes to set up its machinery. In regard to matters of this kind, there is a Select Committee which is capable of dealing with the matter and of bringing in any report of emphasis upon points to the notice of the House. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) quoted from Reports both of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Select Committee on Estimates to strengthen his case for attacking the Government's responsibility in the matter. I would say this to the noble Lord: first, it is quite clear that the House is entitled to all the information it can get on the matter, and to make its judgment; secondly, it must surely economise to the greatest possible extent it can in the time of hon. Members and of the setting up of committees. I am assured that the full facts about this matter—more than can be stated in the short time of, say, a speech in this House —will be in the hands of the Public Accounts Committee, with the report of the Auditor-General, within about 14 or 15 days from now, and within a week or two after the Easter Recess, I should think, the Accounting Officer of the War Office will be appearing before the Public Accounts Committee and will, as always, offer himself for complete and technical examination by the Members of the House.
I should imagine that the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake),


the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, will take with him full knowledge of the points which have been raised by hon. Members from all sides of the House during the course of both the Committee and Report stages Debate on this Supplementary Estimate. Then, in the course of that examination, and the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, if there are specific matters which should again be brought before the House, they can be, because the Government have nothing to hide in this matter but want all the facts to be known to all the hon. Members of the House, I submit that is the proper way to deal with the matter. We shall be only too happy to place all the facts that we have at our disposal before the Public Accounts Committee in that way. I think that really meets the spirit of the appeal of the noble Lord, and therefore I think that we might go to a decision upon this matter.

Mr. Eden: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting what he, as an old Parliamentarian, feels to be the desire of this House. What we really feel is that we

want this matter probed. It is not a heresy hunt. A large sum of money has disappeared at great cost to the taxpayer, and we ought to know about it. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his proposal. I think that ought to be considered. It may well meet the situation; I do not know. I am not quite certain from memory what power the Public Accounts Committee has for the examination of witnesses—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Complete.

Mr. Eden: Is that so as regards the chairman?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, he can send for any witnesses and examine all documents.

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged. I do not want to go beyond that point. Our only desire is for the fullest information. If that can be obtained we shall be satisfied; if not we may have to ask for some other opportunity to raise the matter.

Question put, "That '£50,000,000 stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 88.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[11.58 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Crawley, A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, Sputh)
Crossman, R, H. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Daggar, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gaines, P.
Herbison, Miss M.


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Holman, P.


Attewell, H. C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
House, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hoy, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Baird, J.
Deer, G.
Irving, W. J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Delargy, H. J.
Janner, B.


Belcher, J. W.
Diamond, J.
Jager, G. (Winchester)


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dobbie, W.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Berry, H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Keenan, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Dye, S.
Kenyon, C.


Blackburn, A. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kirby, B. V.


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Boardman, H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ewart, R.
Lindgren, G. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Fairhurst, F.
Logan, D. G.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Farthing, W. J.
Longden, F.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lyne, A. W.


Brook? T. J. (Bothwell)
Forman, J. C.
McLeavy, F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Macpherson, T. (Bamford)


Buchanaa, G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Burke, W. A.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Carmichael, James
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Champion, A. J.
Gibbins, J.
Mathers, G.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Medland, H. M.


Cobb, F. A.
Gilzean, A.
Mellish, R. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mitchison, G. R.


Collindridge, F.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Monslow, W.


Collins, V. J.
Grey, C. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Grierson, E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Griffiths. D. (Rather Valley)
Moyle, A.


Cooper, Wing-Cmdr. G.
Hale, Leslie
Murray, J. D.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hall, W. G.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Corvedale, Viscount
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)




Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford)
Shurmer, P.
Titterington, M. F.


Paget, R. T.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Palmer, A. M. F
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Parker, J.
Simmons, C. J.
Usborne, Henry


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushclifle)
Skeffingtan, A. M.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Skinnard, F. W.
Walkden, E.


Pearson, A.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Watkins, T. E.


Peart, Capt. T. F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Weitzman, D.


Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Solley, L. J.
West, D. G.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Price, M. Philips
Sparks, J. A.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Proctor, W. T.
Stamford, W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Steele, T.
Wilkes, L.


Randall, H. E.
Swingler, S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ranger, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Roberts, A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williamson, T


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willis, E.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Woodburn, A.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Woods, G. S.


Royle, C.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wyatt, W.


Segal, Dr. S.
Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)
Yates, V. F.


Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Sharp, Granville
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Thurtle, E.
Mr. Michael Stewart and


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Tiffany, S.
Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Prescott, Stanley


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Barlow, Sir J.
Naughton, S. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchinghrooke, Viscount
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boothby, R.
Hollis, M. C.
Renton, D.


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Kendall, W D.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Byers, Frank
Langford-Holt, J.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Challen, C.
Leggn-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Channon, H.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spence, H. R.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Teeling, William


Cuthbert, W. N.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drayson, G. B
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Brews, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fox, Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant.


Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1946–47

Resolutions reported:

CLASS III

LAW CHARGES

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries arid expenses of the Law Officers' Department; the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Procurator-

General and Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the costs of prosecutions, of other legal proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, ETC.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for such of the salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court of judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, and a grant in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals; and the salaries and expenses of the War Pensions (Special Review) Tribunals."

LAND REGISTRY

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the office of Land Registry."

CLASS 1

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding Lao, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE

8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council."

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £102,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Civil Service Commission."

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES

10. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20 000, he granted to His Majesty, to dray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1947, for certain miscellaneous expenses, including certain grants in aid."

CLASS IV

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, ETC.

11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,140, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1947, for sundry grants in aid of scientific investigation, etc., and other grants."

CLASS VIII

SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES

12. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for superannuation and other non-effective annual allowances, additional allowances, gratuities, compassionate allowances and supplementary pensions in respect of civil employment."

CLASS X

WAR DAMAGE COMMISSION

13.,"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £96,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the War Damage Commission."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS INLAND REVENUE

14. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £550,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."

CLASS III

LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND

15. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department and other law charges, the salaries and expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in Scotland."

CLASS I

SCOTTISH HOME DEPARTMENT

16. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £107,021, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland; salaries and expenses of the Scottish Home Department; expenses in respect of private legislation procedure in Scotland, a subsidy for transport services to the Western Highlands and Islands, etc.; a grant in lieu of Land Tax; contributions towards the expenses of Probation and of Remand Homes and grants in connection with physical training and recreation."

CLASS III

POLICE, SCOTLAND

17. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £105,250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salary and expenses of the Inspector of Constabulary, the cost of special services, grants in respect of Police expenditure and a grant in aid of the Police Federation in Scotland."

CLASS IV

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

18. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,321,942, be granted to His


Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for public education in Scotland, including certain grants in aid of the Education (Scotland) Fund, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including a grant in aid."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

12.9 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: These are very large sums, and I think that it would be only fitting and in keeping with the character of our race if we asked for a word or two of explanation from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): This rather large sum which we are asking the House to approve for Scottish education, arises in consequence of the additional Vote given by the Ministry of Education for England and Wales. This sum referred to is eleven-eightieths of the sum given by the Ministry of Education.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is a very succinct precise of the Estimate. Cannot the Joint Under-Secretary of State inform us what it is proposed to do?

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY (BARRELS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

12.10 a.m.

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: In ordinary circumstances I would keep my remarks to within a very brief compass at such an hour, but the matter which I have to raise is one of such vital and urgent importance to the whole herring fishing industry that I feel I must take a little time over it. In any case, as it is now past midnight, I might as well be hanged for a herring as for a sprat.
Last year the herring fishing season could be considered to be a very satisfactory one, and over one million crans were

caught, of which roughly one-fifth reached the consumer in the form of cured herring, that is to say, salted and packed in barrels. That seemed very encouraging to the industry and there was every reason to think that we might look forward to not only a good season but an even better season this year. The herring—the silver darlings, as the fishermen call them—are there swimming in the sea in countless millions. There are dense shoals of them in the waters round our shores. They are there to be had for the catching—an inexhaustible supply of food of the very highest quality, full of proteins and fats, laden with life-giving vitamins, just the kind of food that we cannot possibly have too much of at this particular time. I asked the Minister of Food to be here, but unfortunately he has departed to the other side of the herring pond. I hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food might be here. She is, I hope, engaged in making arrangements by which in future we will be able to fry our herring in oatmeal, for which we will not have had to surrender any points. I should remind her that the herring is one of the most valuable foods we have. One pound of herring gives more energy than one pound of eggs and twice as much energy as one pound of potatoes. These facts cannot be too widely known at the present time.
Surely we would be guilty of a crime against commonsense, not to say a crime against humanity, if we failed to mobilise all our resources to exploit this inexhaustible supply of high quality food, and to reap this harvest by every possible means we can concentrate on it? There were some 650 vessels engaged on herring fishing last year, and it seems not unreasonable to believe that there will be about 100 more this year, taking into account the vessels released by the Admiralty and reconditioned, and the vessels which have been taken over from the Admiralty and converted into fishing boats. I know that there would have been still more vessels if it had not been for the shortage of larch and other timbers for boatbuilding, the shortage of engines—there are boats which have been completed but there are no engines available for them—and the shortage of nets. But putting aside these difficulties, all of which I hope are receiving very close attention by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply at the present time, it seemed to me that the


prospects for this season were pretty fair—at least, I thought so until I went north at Christmas. There, in the course of conversations with men engaged in the various branches of the herring industry, I found that the very greatest anxiety prevailed over one very vital matter and that was the supply of barrels required for packing the cured herring. I indicated that one-fifth of last year's catch was cured, that is to say, salted and packed in barrels. For that purpose 300,000 barrels were used. I believe the target this year put before the herring fishing industry is 1,400,000 crans of herring, of which it is hoped to cure 450,000 crans. That amount of herring will require the making of 600,000 barrels —twice the number produced last year. From such information as I have been able to gather there is not, at the present moment, the slightest prospect of these barrels being available for the herring industry next summer. Here is U.N.R.R.A. anxious to buy these herring, and feed the starving multitudes, the Ministry of Food badgering the fishing industry to catch all they can, and the fishermen ready with their boats, nets and gear, ready to reap the harvest from the sea, and the Board of Trade, apparently completely oblivious to the implications of this policy. If that is an example of cooperative planning on the grand scale, then heaven help us all, and particularly the fishermen, who will get the sticky end of this.
I must impress on the Parliamentary Secretary that this is an urgent matter. The greatest uncertainty prevails in the industry. I found that the coopers, who should be making these barrels in winter, were unemployed. These highly skilled men are drifting away to other occupations. I found the curers, who ought to be engaging their staff for curing herring, in a state of great uncertainty and unable to enter into any engagements. The whole industry is full of apprehension that preparations for this season will be brought to nought. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary talking to me about other ways of handling the catch. I know all about the interesting experiment carried out in Shetland last year by the Herring Industry Board for preserving herring by the method of quick freezing. I know about the other interesting and successful experiments they have carried out there for utilising surplus herring for making animal food oil and fertiliser. All these things

have their uses, but at the end of the day one comes against this incontrovertible fact, that pickle curing of herring is still the only practical way of dealing with heavy landings, and for pickle-cured herring there must be barrels, as nothing else has been found satisfactory.
I know that at the end of 1946 the stock of barrels in this country was completely exhausted. On 23rd January, I asked the President of the Board of Trade how many standards of timber were available for making barrels between that date and 31st March. The answer I got was that 200 standards of timber had so far been licensed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said nothing about the fact that licences had been issued for 500 standards of battens to be made into barrel staves and nothing about the far more significant fact that there was not a single standard of timber available in the country, or likely to be, up to 31st March, for issue against those licences. It is a senseless procedure to lead these people up the garden path by shovelling out licences which are not worth the paper on which they are written, because there is no timber.
I mentioned the target of 600,000 barrels of cured herrings this year. To meet that there must be available 3,000 standards of timber. Towards that there are the 200 standards I have mentioned plus the nebulous promise of another 150 standards sometime, perhaps, from Canada; altogether, putting the most favourable complexion on it, 350 standards, or less than enough for one-sixth of the total quantity of herring which it is hoped to cure next season. There is, therefore, a grim prospect, unless immediate steps are taken to import the balance of timber required to make these 600,000 barrels. It may be that in consequence of the many Questions I put down on this subject, there has been some improvement in the situation. If so I shall be more than pleased to hear of it.
However many standards the Parliamentary Secretary may say are available, I must impress upon him that the total quantity required is 3,000 standards and nothing less will suffice. There are plenty of sources from which this timber can be obtained. The timber which has always been preferred in the industry for making these barrels is Swedish spruce. Scots fir and Scots spruce have also been used. There are other suitable kinds of soft


wood from Finland and Canada, and certain soft woods obtainable from Russia and Germany. Surely it is not beyond the power of the President of the Board of Trade to tap some of these sources, if not all of them. I conclude by reminding the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade of the statement reported to have been made by the Minister of Health at Blackpool in 1945. He said:
This Island of ours is almost made of coal and is almost surrounded by fish. Only an organising genius could arrange a shortage of both at the same time.
The organising genius who presides over the Ministry of Fuel and Power has been most successful in arranging a shortage of coal, and a shortage which will certainly last through the summer and a great deal beyond that. Unless the other organising genius who presides over the Board of Trade gets off the mark very quickly over this matter of timber for making barrels, the Government will have succeeded in achieving the impossible by having produced a shortage of both coal and fish at the same time.

12.22 a.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn (Great Yarmouth): I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without voicing the sentirnents of the people of Great Yarmouth in the matter of timber for herring barrels. We have had the experience of the last herring season on the East Anglian coast, when we had the experience of not experiencing a glut when there were plenty of herrings for sale. The reason we did not have a glut—which we ought never to have in any case in any season—was that on certain days when fishing should have been at its height the vessels were kept in port. They were kept in port because there was nowhere to put the big catches which would have been caught had the drifters gone out. One way in which we could have dealt with the increased catches would obviously have been to have had a greatly increased number of barrels.
This lack of barrels is obviously due to the wartime dislocation and to the fact that last season was really the first postwar herring season; but we are preparing now for next season, and part of that preparation must obviously include all the ancillary accessories to the herring fleet and its activities. We have got to make sure that the wood and the barrels

will be available in good time. That is why I have no hesitation in adding my voice to the sentiments that have been expressed tonight in the hope that the Government arc getting forward with their plans now and are going to see, not that we have all the barrels that we wish to have—one cannot hope for that now—but that plans are in hand to get some of the wood in good time for the season on the East coast of Scotland and the East coast of England.
In addition to that, I presume that some notice has already been taken of the Herring Board's report, issued about three months ago, and that plans are already being made of a long-term nature to see that wood is available for the increased catches that we anticipate. There has been a growth since the war ended of the activities of the Norwegians and the Dutch. They must be using barrels, and I rather believe they have been able to increase their quantities of timber for barrels, and they must have obtained it from the old known sources which provided it in prewar days. Those sources, surely, must be opening up, and if the. Parliamentary Secretary can tell us tonight that there is some forward movement in opening up these old sources, we shall go away very pleased indeed. It is known that negotiations were started last year with our Russian friends, and presumably, as far as those negotiations were concerned, there was the question of imports of timber from the old sources in Russia. We should all be glad that progress in that direction has been made.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Boothby: The Parliamentary Secretary knows that this is an old story. We have never had enough timber for barrels for the last three or four years. This is a tragedy, not only for the industry, but because of the present food shortage. I need not tell the House that herrings are not only an extremely nutritious article of food, but they contain much fat, and the shortage of fats is one of the greatest problems, if we are to believe nutritional experts, all over the world. If we had had enough timber for barrels 1pr herrings and salt, a great number of people on the Continent of Europe would not have suffered from malnutrition. What is more, a great many would not have died.
This situation is a by-product of the fuel crisis. If we were in a position to offer coal to those countries of Europe where there is timber, we should be able to get that much-needed timber in exchange. One of the reasons why they cannot give timber is because we cannot give coal. It is only part of the wider problem which we shall be considering in this House the week after next. In so far as it is part of their programme, I think that the Board of Trade is as responsible to the herring industry as to other industries which are suffering from this desperate shortage of timber. The Ministry of Food comes forward with various proposals about the use of herrings. The Herring Board urges fishermen to go out for maximum catches. But I say to the Board of Trade, "You have no right to ask the fishermen to catch this wonderful bounty which circles round our coasts in the summer and autumn unless you are prepared to deal with big landings." The only way to deal with these catches is to have barrels for the herrings, and the salt. I would tonight make an almost desperate appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to give the manufacturers of herring barrels top priority so far as timber is concerned. This is more important even than housing. It is more important even than any other purpose for which timber is used, and if I complain that the Government have not dealt with this matter rightly, it is because they have not appreciated the vital importance of cured herrings to many countries. In the interests particularly of Western Europe —more than that, in the interests of humanity, we should give this trade a priority which it has not had in the last two years. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some assurance.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: In the few moments at my disposal, might I urge the tremendous importance of this question? I hope that if it is impossible to secure the necessary importation of timber, an appeal may be made to the home producers to produce the necessary timber to deal with the catches next season. If we do not get the necessary timber, then, of course, we shall find ourselves in that very tragic situation which we have experienced

before—that situation in which we have to dump herring back into the sea. This shortage of timber may mean that there will be dumped into the sea valuable catches which, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) never fails to remind the House, constitute one of our most valuable food supplies.
There is another angle. To meet the immediate situation I do emphasise that timber is required quickly in order to provide the barrels which are wanted all round the coast. I hope that will not be ignored. At the same time, I would ask hon. Members to remember the new technique for curing herrings. If there is one type of herring which is better than the salted herring, it is the fresh herring. Science has now given us the opportunity to cure herrings in a manner different from that which was customary in the old days. In the past, we used to export something like three quarters of a million tons of herrings every year. That was when the industry was flourishing. I doubt very much whether we will ever be able to do that again. So far as cured herrings are concerned, in the lean years between the wars the European people lost their taste for pickled herrings, and it is doubtful whether we will be able to secure that market again. But Europe is hungry today for fresh herrings, and it is now scientifically possible to produce fresh herrings which can he exported on a long-term policy. The issue at the moment is that we must have timber for next season's catch. I hope, however, that the Government will look at the possibility of having processing plant established at the various herring ports to deal with the herrings in other ways than by pickling them. I do urge on the Government the plea made tonight, that this matter should not be neglected; and that everything possible should be done to provide sufficient timber to meet the needs of the industry before it is too late.

12.32 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) has raised a matter which is of importance to his constituents and to people in other parts of Scotland and England where herring fishing and curing provide employment. He has Men ably supported by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the


hon. Members for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) and Berwick and Haddington (Mr. Robertson). I realise the importance of the question. It is not only a matter of providing employment in this country, but of providing food where food is needed. There is also an export interest involved. The herrings about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have been talking are, I take it, the pickle-cured and exported herrings I understand that herring supplies for the home market are also indirectly affected. While, therefore. the particular shortage to which attention has been drawn tonight is not mentioned in the Economic Survey for 1947, that is not to say that we have been unmindful of it I am told by my Department that the number of inquiries received on this subject, particularly from the other side of the Border, is most impressive, as is the case always with matters which particularly affect Scotland. Hon. Members who have an expert knowledge of the subject, know that there are innumerable species of timber, each of which has been found by experience to possess qualities which make it most suitable for particular purposes. I will not enter into details, but we know that poplar is most suitable for matchmaking, yellow pine for pattern making, and Swedish white wood for herring barrel making. Some kinds of home-grown timber are also used, but we have raided our supplies of home-grown timber during the war and they are now really exhausted. There may be a little residue but not sufficient.
Experiments have been made with other kinds of timber, but they are been found to be unsuitable went to the Swedish Government we were told that the most made available towards me requirements would be about our normal requirements. Sir possess the kind of export which Sweden requires from us—and as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that is coal—we were not in a strong bargaining position, but we pressed the case as hard as we could, and although the Swedish Government required most of their own production to pack their own deliveries free of cost to the devastated areas of Europe, we finally succeeded in purchasing about one-third of our requirements of herring barrel staves, of which about one-half are due to arrive the month after next, next April.
Failing to get sufficient timber of the most suitable quality, that is from Sweden, we went to Canada, and Canada has been scoured, I am sorry to say, with very small results. Russia has been approached, but need I say, without success. Finland has always exported staves, and what are known as collapsed barrels, but there is, so I am told, a reluctance—whether wellfounded or not—in our herring and cooperage industries against the use of Finnish wood. Finland supplies Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Holland with substantial quantities of staves and collapsed barrels, manufactured partly from white wood and partly from redwood. She will not supply exclusively white wood, and the curers in this country, who possibly work to a higher standard than those in other countries, will not take the redwood.

Mr. Boothby: They will have to take what they can get.

Mr. Belcher: I am making a plea now, and I hope it will be heeded. I can sympathise with the resentment of people who have been working to high standards, but in the present circumstances, in the interests of our export trade and the consumers in this country, I hope those concerned will see no reflection on their own performances and will be prepared to take whatever we can get for them, whether it be white wood or redwood. It is difficult enough in all conscience to get timber from Finland and other Baltic countries, and if we can succeed in securing some timber which is suitable in some degree for manufacturing these barrels which they require, I hope they will not be too exacting in the standards which they apply.
As we could not meet more than a fraction of the industry's requirements of herring barrel staves in the ordinary way, it was necessary to have alternative supplies. Included in our general softwood imports is a fair quantity of sawn white wood, but very little indeed combines all those qualities needed in staves. Most over, as was explained in a reply a Question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland on 23rd January, this timber is also needed for other essential purposes. Special action has been taken to ensure that all such timber is earmarked for herring barrel coopers, and timber merchants holding


stocks have been asked to offer them to the coopers without delay.
I hope that the action we have taken will meet the present situation. We shall do our utmost to obtain supplies of suitable staves this year, but present indications are that this is going to be difficult, and in its own interests the industry will be well advised.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half-an-hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to One o'Clock.